Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 93467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11773
  • Reputation: +8035/-3009
  • Gender: Male
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2013, 07:57:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Resignation Letter of Fr Juan Turco to Bishop Fellay (from TIA website):

    Letter to the Superior General of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay

    Fr. Juan José Turco

    Bogotá, April 5, 2010.
    Monday in the Octave of Easter
    Bishop Fellay,

    After informing you of what has happened with me on a personal level (with the correspondence that I sent you yesterday) and after having received your replies, I see no point to continue writing. In good conscience I cannot agree with what is being done by both Your Excellency and the other Fathers.

    Doctrinal concessions

    First and foremost, I refer to all the doctrinal flaws involved in the present talks with Rome.

    In short, let me mention the following:
    The doctrinal flaw of accepting pre-conditions;

    Did you or did you not ask for the lifting of the excommunication?

    Why were things that Archbishop Lefebvre has said and done hidden or misrepresented?

    How it is possible to attribute to the Virgin Mary [the accomplishment of] pre-conditions involving modernist errors and falsehoods?

    How can we have continued on [with the talks] despite the fact that Rome has not converted?

    How can you present a false image of Benedict XVI as if he would be regularly favoring Tradition? How does he show this? Is it by his saying that the Traditional Mass is subordinate to the New Mass or by seeking to merge the two? Is it by his lifting of the excommunication as if it were valid? Is it by his saying that we are outside of the Church if we do not accept the Council? Is it by his using the image of the Curé of Ars to encourage "the active participation of the laity" or his embellishing of Modernism with "holiness" and "piety" in order to thus save the modernist liturgy?

    Smiles and concessions in the talks with Rome
    I place these questions along with the other points presented in the letters I sent to you in October and November of last year (2009).

    In good conscience I cannot agree to these talks and their flaws:
    Because we are forced to remain silent (the facts can prove it);
    Because I foresee that we will continue to make doctrinal concessions;
    Because, according to statements of the Society, I see that what is intended is not to convert Rome, but to reach a canonical solution regardless of whether we shred the doctrine and the liturgy in the process;
    Because I foresee that we will align ourselves with those [who accepted the conditions] of Ecclesia Dei;
    Because the way these talks are being conducted is a betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre.
    Fellay: ‘An authentic renewal started…’

    Second, in good conscience I cannot agree with many of your statements.

    In addition to those I have mentioned on other occasions, I want to affirm here that it seems incredible to me that the Superior of the SSPX can make such error of judgment as to write to me: "If someone, as you claim, like Fr. Ceriani, that everyone [in the Vatican] is modernist, then think again. You are outside of the reality and the truth".

    Or when you wrote: "A renewal of the Church has started. It is very difficult, but authentic."

    Ideological persecution inside SSPX

    Third, because of the doctrinal implications in the talks:

    I cannot agree to the prohibitions which demanded that I remain silent about the Modernism of Benedict XVI. It is incredible that this has occurred in the Society of Saint Pius X.

    No official criticism permitted of Benedict's visit to the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє In January 2010
    Fourth, I cannot agree with – and once again I protest – the abuse of authority that has taken place:
    The threat that I would have to leave the Society unless I remained silent about the Modernism of the Pope;
    The expulsion of Bucaramanga based on lies;
    The alleged canonical admonitions preparing for my expulsion;
    The prohibition to carry out any ministry and to hear confessions.
    It is absolutely incredible how deep you – and the other Superiors of the Society – have fallen to avoid any talk about the flaws in these discussions with Rome and to persecute those who dare to raise objections.

    Bishop Fellay, it is your decision whether to continue with these talks. My conscience cannot agree either with the doctrinal flaws included in them or with the abuse of authority that has been made. In good conscience, I cannot officially concur with what the SSPX is doing at present, and, for that reason, I see myself forced to leave the Society.

    Decision to leave

    Therefore, be aware that for the reasons exposed above, today I leave the Society of Saint Pius X. Should the Society at any time cut off these talks that are destroying it and return to clearly denouncing the Modernism of the Pope and the official Church, I will request permission to enter the Society once again.

    May God and the Virgin help us all.

                 With respect,

                 Fr. Juan José Turco
    This letter was posted on Radio Cristiandad under the headline
    “Father Juan José Turco continues the good combat.”
    It can be read in Spanish here.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #16 on: January 01, 2013, 08:12:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Taken from TIA website:

    Letter of Resignation of Fr. Gabriel Grosso

    Dear Fr. Bouchacourt,

    I am writing to tell you that for some time I have been praying to know what God Our Lord is asking of me. I assure you that I have experienced painful hours because of my disagreement with the authorities of the SSPX. But since I am not a member [with power of decision] and my opinion does not count on these matters, I have decided to inform you of my determination to leave the SSPX.


    Fr. Grosso expresses his sadness and regret
    I am explaining to you some of the reasons for my decision because you deserve to know them for the charity and understanding that you have shown me since my arrival at the SSPX.

    The question is rooted in my different understanding of the facts and correlating them to eschatology. I am not just talking about the Apocalypse, because the issue goes beyond this text since it also refers to the eschatological words of Our Lord and passages from the writings of St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul and the Prophet Daniel.

    Since I was in the seminary, I have been reading Fr. Leonardo Castellani and I believe in Bible prophecies, so these ideas concerning the time in which we live are not new to me. I consider that given the current state of affairs, to preach to the faithful that we should reconquer [in the merge with Rome] something that is heading toward death means to not understand our situation.

    I believe - and for this reason I decided to act accordingly - that the fight has reached the point spoken of by the Angel to the Church of Sardis: “Be watchful and strengthen the things that remain, which are ready to die. For I find not thy works full before my God” (Apoc 3:2).

    Therefore, in my view, to approach modernist Rome is futile, and worse, it is harmful, because until now Rome has shown that it will devour all the traditionalist groups and reduce them to the synthesis that it believes is the Church, that is to say, Vatican II. And, of course, Benedict XVI is the chief mentor of this Church.

    Now it seems that you and Bishop Bernard Fellay have faith in him and believe that he will save the Church: “We can indeed hope that God will reward the undeniable valor that Benedict XVI has shown by conceding the two prerequisites that the SSPX solicited, and that He will give him the strength and lights necessary to carry out such a restoration, which seems impossible from the human point of view (your editorial in Iesus Christi n. 121).

    The contrast is striking when one considers the Apocalypse "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke like a dragon," … “And it deceiveth those who dwell on earth.”

    Thus I believe that the road taken by the SSPX is drawing it toward its ruin, and this is corroborated by others who have already denounced it (see the resignation of Fr. Juan Carlos Ceriani).


    Faith in Ratzinger and a belief he will save the Church
    In the Book of Daniel and the Apocalypse, we are warned that our enemies will have divine permission “to make war on the saints and to overcome them” (Apoc 13:7) and nothing, at least nothing visibly organized, will remain that the enemies will not have infiltrated and destroyed. All that will remain will be some irrelevant dispersed faithful. This will not happen, however, without the infidelity of the leaders of the group, because we know that God never abandons man unless man abandons Him first. We have the example of the present day Vatican, completely dominated by its enemies because their members have abandoned Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    These considerations – and many others – have distanced me from the SSPX, because [according to you] to preach such words to the faithful would frighten them. I believe, on the contrary, that it is our duty to tell the “the faithful to flee Jerusalem (Rome) before its horrible destruction,” which is the position the SSPX has taken since 2000, as I was told. “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel in the holy place: let he who reads, hears, and then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains (Mt 24: 15-16).

    And we must not approach the Rome anathematized by God: “But should we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1: 8-0)

    Dear Father, since my intention is not to discuss interpretation of texts, I have decided after much prayer and consultation with prudent persons, to take my leave without making any scandal or saying anything to the faithful. I will go and live with my parents in San Francisco (Córdoba Province, Argentina), and there, with the help of God and some persons I know who think as I do on such matters, I intend to persevere in the priesthood.

    God bless you and thank you very much for everything.

    In Domino,

    Fr. Gabriel Grosso.

    P S. - I was thinking of what we were talking about yesterday and I believe that it is my duty to be faithful to what Our Lord Jesus Christ asks of me.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #17 on: January 01, 2013, 08:18:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • French Capuchin Resists Drive for Accord Back in 2009
    Taken from TIA website
    TIA commentary puts letter in context; actual letter follows:

    Reactions opposed to the accord of the SSPX leaders with Rome implying the acceptance of Vatican II “interpreted in the light of Tradition” seem to be growing among priests of the organization. Two of them that recently came to TIA's knowledge appear to be just the tip of the iceberg. The first was from the Prior of Orizaba in Mexico, Fr. Basilio Meramo, who publicly stated his indignation over Bishop Fellay’s agreement with Rome, which he qualified as an apostasy. TIA posted one sermon and an open letter that he wrote presenting his opposition to any accord.

    Now, a new case has come to the surface.

    On February 5, Bishop Fellay was present at a meeting of the SSPX superiors in France that took place in St. Nicholas de Chardonnay, Paris. After his speech in which he gave an account of the recent steps regarding his relations with the Vatican, a Capuchin superior of the Convent of St. Anthony Aurenque, Fr. Jean de Morgon, stood up and asked whether it was Bishop Fellay’s intention to accept “the Conciliar Church, the Modernist Rome.” As the Bishop hesitated, the religious insisted a second and a third time, but received no answer to his question.

    The Franciscan superior, also present, ordered Fr. Jean to be silent and leave the room. Fr. Jean declared in loud voice that “there is no obligation whatsoever to obey someone who contradicts Faith and Morals,” but he left the room. Afterwards, he was ordered to issue a letter of apology to Bishop Fellay.

    Fr. Jean stated that he would apologize for the form of his question, not for its content. To this “letter of apology” he had been ordered to write, he attached a declaration in which he expounded the reasons for his disagreement with the accord. He sent this declaration to various friends and supporters of SSPX, who placed it on a French website on February 22, 2009. Recently, one of our readers sent it to us.

    Below, we present the main excerpts of Fr. Jean’s attached statement, translated from French by TIA (our subtitles). Our readers familiar with French can read the full text here or read news about it on websites that reported the episode (here and here).

    The highlights of this docuмent are doubtless the following:

    Fr. Jean’s allegation that a network of progressivist priests infiltrated the SSPX;
    His affirmation that they managed to rise to key-positions in the organization;
    His statement that the present day accord with Rome headed by Bishop Fellay would be the principal goal of their agenda.
    Also surprising is his final affirmation that Bishop Williamson would be a part of this team.
    I leave the reader to judge the truth of these statements.

    TIA is taking the initiative to report this episode, as it did in the case of Fr. Meramo, because it seems to have been forbidden to circulate these dissensions among the SSPX grassroots. It is hard to justify leaders of a movement who prevent their followers from knowing what is happening in their own ranks. I believe the faithful have the right to know these controversies. Here is my contribution toward this end..

         The Editor

    Principal Excerpts from Fr. Jean’s Letter

    Convent St. Anthony Aurenque
    Castelnaud d’Arbieu, Fleurence
    February 11, 2009
    Our Lady of Lourdes

    Monsignor, …

    In conscience, before God and men, for the common good of Catholic tradition and hence the Church, it seems to be my duty to add to my letter of apology what follows:

    After my vehement intervention on February 5, pressure was put on me both in St. Nicholas and in Causade. In response, I said that I would apologize for the form (the ire) but not for the matter (the complaint).

    Thus, I intensely regret having lost my temper, insofar as it caused scandal to some (although I have received congratulations by telephone and letter) or harmed or deviated from the subject of my complaint. Further, a simple letter of apology might allow you to think that I regret what I said. Thus, [to avoid this impression] I feel obliged to return to that matter and make it even more explicit. …

    If I did not sing the Te Deum for the Motu Proprio, it is because my superior allowed me freedom on that point. I did not want to applaud a text that places the Mass of all times on the same level as the “bastard” Mass, as Msgr. Lefebvre often called it. …

    I consider the SSPX a work of the Church, my second mother. To it I owe the integral conservation of my faith, my religious life and my priesthood. I wholehearted love it, and this is why I become indignant when I believe it is threatened. …

    [He goes on to explain that he believes there is an infiltration inside the SSPX, and he calls those members “subversives.”]

    When I took the microphone [at the meeting in Paris], I said that I - along with many other priests - was very apprehensive with what was happening in the SSPX- Vatican relations that appears to be leading us - slowly but surely – toward joining with conciliar and modernist Rome.

    On that occasion I spoke out – with great repugnance – on behalf of other priests who encouraged me to do so. I was not just expressing my personal opinion. For five years, I have been convinced that this development constitutes part of a skillful process designed by certain subversive priests who managed to occupy strategic positions in the SSPX (as superiors, in seminaries, media and finances) in order to lead it to this merger [with modernist Vatican]. …

    A suspect petition

    Since I returned from Paris, Divine Providence has confirmed to me - as if it were necessary - that this process of merging is in progress. One of the faithful showed me a text from the Internet of a petition of support for Benedict XVI. In the announcements of Sunday Mass, I believed it was my duty to warn the faithful about this campaign, telling them that we should pray for Pope Benedict XVI, because he has heavy responsibilities, but that it was not the case to give him an unconditional support, considering that he had just declared (L’Osservatore Romano, French weekly edition, Dec. 23-30, 2008, p. 6) that the Church rejoices at the autonomy between the State and the Church, considering it a great progress of mankind. I also deemed it proper to invite the faithful to read an [old] article of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais about the errors taught (again and again, without any corrections) by professor Ratzinger (Sel de la Terre n. 67, pp 22-54).

    Further investigation of the source of this petition clearly shows on the website of Forum Catholique that it springs from and is encouraged by GREC [French acronym for Group of Reflection among Catholics] that was founded in 1997 (for 10 years we did not even know of the existence of such a club!). This group brings together clergy and laity from all the various tendencies of “tradition,” primarily those who have merged [with the Vatican]. Among those is found the SSPX. They work “to achieve reconciliation according to the institutional and juridical forms.” This goal obviously targets the SSPX, which among that group is the only one that (still) has not merged.

    One can also read there that this petition is encouraged by Archbishop [Fortunato] Baldelli, the Apostolic Nuncio, and Bishop [Philippe] Breton of Aire and Dax, representing the Bishops of France. I was told by a SSPX colleague that Bishop Breton stated that he met Fr. Cacqueray [the French superior of SSPX] at a GREC meeting … I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that the superior of the French district [Cacqueray] had exhorted all the faithful of Mutualité [in Paris] to sign the petition supporting Benedict XVI.

    Do we need more proofs that the SSPX authorities are determined to merge with conciliar Rome? Is it necessary to listen again to the program of Radio Courtesy (July 17, 2007) where Fr. Lelong, a GREC activist, assured his listeners that the present day SSPX leaders would be fully willing to merge and that their task would essentially be only to silence the recalcitrant inside the SSPX?

    Measuring the consequences

    I am perfectly aware of the gravity of these revelations and their consequences. I have weighed and verified them as much as possible through the means Divine Providence recently afforded me. In conscience I could no longer remain silent, only in prayer. I do not want to wait for the house to be completely burned before calling the alert! I am absolutely certain that I fulfill my duty and the will of God in communicating these things to you. It is up to you to make your own judgment following your own conscience. Thinking about the numerous souls that were confided by Our Lord Jesus Christ to your care and for which you will have to give an account regarding their faith at the judgment day [the question rises]: “What do you expect from the Church?” The answer: The FAITH.

    Regarding the future, I place myself totally in the hands of Divine Providence. I expect to be cast into the street, being labeled “sede-vacantist” (defamation is a classical tactic of the subversives to marginalize their opponents). If some tragedy will happen to me - it is necessary to foresee everything - I have confided this letter and all my hot docuмents to some dependable friends, who can disseminate them should the need arise. I know that my parents will provide for me and help me to re-start or, better said, to continue my religious life somewhere else. It is an enormous pain for me to become “vagus”, but if this is the will of the Good God in this astonishing crisis, so be it!

    I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation. Neither do I have any in Bishop Williamson, who was found to be in secret contact with Rome a week after Easter 2008. Regarding our other two Bishops, I hope that on the day of the merger (which would not be so far off, as many pretend, since Benedict XVI is getting old…) or even before, at least one of them will stand up and continue the work of Msgr. Lefebvre.

    Should this happen, I alert my brothers of Morgon and Aurenque who refuse this capitulation on the battlefield of the Faith that I will return and place myself under the obedience of their superior or the eldest one. Until this day comes, let us remain united in praying the Rosary, confiding in the final triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    Fr. Jean O.F.M.
    Posted April 14, 2009

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #18 on: January 01, 2013, 08:28:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter to Bishop Fellay Replying to My Expulsion from the SSPX

    Fr. Basilio Méramo

    On April 7, I received a hand-delivered notification of my expulsion - a thing to be expected after two canonical admonitions. It is, let me say at once, unjust and invalid both juridically and theologically since the two admonitions were per se inconsistent, and were immediately acknowledged as such by me in my two letters of response.

    I appeal to Eternal Rome against the decree of my expulsion, according to Canon Law (can 647 § 2 n. 4), which suspends any decree. Thus, juridically my expulsion would be suspended, lacking juridical effect until the appeal is judged, that is, indefinitely. Indeed, this is because today Eternal Rome has been invaded by unworthy prelates who do not fulfill their duty of confirming the faithful in the Faith.

    On the contrary, they corrupt and prostitute the Faith, cult and morals, and violate the truth, whose rule they abhor like antichrists. … Never has a greater abomination and desolation been seen in the holy place. They promote adoration of themselves as God, invoking the divine power, which they pervert and invert. For this reason Msgr. Lefebvre said that “Rome is occupied by antichrists” in his June 30, 1988 declaration. Ironically, the topic [of my expulsion] remains suspended until the parousia of Christ.

    Open arms to those who accept Vatican II
    Notwithstanding, it falls to me to bear with patience and integrity this injury, remaining firm as a Catholic priest in the front lines against Modernism in the Antichrist-Rome. This is what Msgr. Lefebvre in that same docuмent called the modernist and liberal Rome that persecutes the holy and infallible Catholic Tradition. It is to this Rome that you, along with the direction of SSPX and the three Bishops, cowardly deliver us under the appearance of a making a good action - [throwing yourselves] into the arms of Benedict XVI who was able to tempt you into a skillful trap.

    Accepting the Council is accepting the French Revolution in the Church

    Now, if you permit me, I will go on to refute the most serious of your fulminating but absurd charges in their theological-doctrinal context.

    I was charged with making false and grave accusations against the general superior of the SSPX, of causing serious damage by opposing him, of being obstinate, rebelling against authority, causing scandal, etc.

    Suenens: "Vatican II was the 1789 in the Church"
    I would like to know, Most Reverend Bishop, what exactly are these false accusations you said I have made. My accusations are grave, I agree, but not false. If falseness exists, it cannot be justly said to be on my part, but rather - forgive me - on yours, since you have been using a double language for a long time. Not because you are bilingual, but because of your great dilemma: How to enter into an accord without allowing the treason to be noticed, covering it under a false appearance of good?

    How is it possible to accept what you stated eight years ago (in an interview to the daily La Liberté on May 11, 2001, published by DICI n. 6, on May 18, 2001), that is, that “we go along with about 95% of the Second Vatican Council,” without being a liberal and modernist? The liberals and modernists themselves acknowledge that Council Vatican II was “the 1789 in the Church,” according to Card. Suenens, that is, the French Revolution of 1789 inside the Church.

    Or as then Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) said: “The problem of the Council was to assimilate the values of centuries of liberal culture” (Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Dethroned Him, introduction). Thus, it is clear that whoever accepts 95% of Vatican Council II, accepts 95% of the French Revolution inside de Church, and also assimilates centuries of liberal culture in the Church. And 95% is a very high percentage.

    Then comes the great question: What are you saying when you affirm that you are going to dialogue with Rome on doctrinal issues? What are you going to discuss? The remaining 5%? This alone bluntly demonstrates the parody, deception, lie and falsity [of your position], all executed with the great appearance of seriousness while in fact everything was becoming increasingly rotten.

    No longer a resistance, but a pact with Masonry and Ecuмenism

    What, then, remains of the SSPX, of resistance against Modernism, when one accepts, goes along with or sustains 95% of that nefarious and atypical Council Vatican II? Indeed, its pretense to not be dogmatic is as absurd as imagining a square circle … [as theologian Marin Sola and Msgr. Lefebvre have proved].

    Msgr. Lefebvre denounced the pact of non-aggression between the Church and Masonry veiled under the names of aggiornamento and openness to the world (cf. Un Évèque Parle, p. 97). You, however, are willing to enter into that pact. Regarding such pact he adds: “Further, the Church no longer accepts being the one true religion, the only road of eternal salvation” (ibid. p. 97).

    Card. Ratzinger (today Benedict XVI) recognizes the false religions as extraordinary roads of salvation, as one can note in this text that, despite its conservative bent, is deeply heretical: “The values of the non-Christian religions have been excessively emphasized to the point that some theologians present them as ordinary roads of salvation, instead of extraordinary” (Informe sobre la Fé, BAC Popular, Madrid, p. 220).

    Acceptance of a schismatic Conciliar Church

    Further, Msgr. Lefebvre stressed that “in the eyes of the Roman authorities as well as our own, this Council represents a new Church that they call the ‘Conciliar Church’” (ibid., p. 97). He also affirmed that this Council was schismatic. Notwithstanding, you can uphold 95% of it. Doing so, you become 95% schismatic.

    Here are his words: “In view of an external and internal analysis of Vatican II, that is, analyzing its texts and the details of this Council, we believe that we can affirm it is a schismatic council because it rejects Tradition and breaks with the Church of the past. It is by the fruits that one judges the tree” (ibid. p. 97).

    Thus, we have the paradoxical and absurd situation of you accepting 95% of the schismatic and apostate post-conciliar New Church. Hence you would be 95% schismatic and apostate – not an insignificant percentage! And you still pretend to be a faithful and worthy successor of Msgr. Lefebvre. If this is not falseness and treason, then I don’t know what it is.

    Nefarious consequences of an accord

    Msgr. Lefebvre considers that “all those who cooperate in the application of this inversion of values, accepting and adhering to the new ‘conciliar Church’ … enter into schism” (ibid. p. 98). Yet today you intend to reach an accord with this schismatic new conciliar Church.

    Ecuмenism represents the universal apostasy
    Further, you want the SSPX to be recognized and regularized by modernist Rome, which practices an apostate ecuмenism. This is how Msgr. Lefebvre described it: “Those who, motivated by laicism and apostate ecuмenism, either minimize or deny these [traditional] riches can only condemn these Bishops [of SSPX]. Doing so, they confirm their schism and their separation from Our Lord and His Reign” (Itinéraire spiritual, p. 9).

    Yes, it is an apostate ecuмenism - this is the language of Scriptures, which calls it the Great Apostasy, that is, the universal or ecuмenical apostasy. Yet you would bring us closer to this ecuмenical apostasy. You want, then, to make us adulterous and schismatic, for according to Msgr. Lefebvre’s words: “This apostasy transforms those members into adulterers and schismatics, opposed to tradition and in rupture with the past of the Church, and hence with the Church that remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. Those who continue to be faithful to the true Church are the object of savage and continuous persecutions” (ibid. pp 70-71).

    Duplicity also in the reply to Benedict’s letter

    In his letter to the Bishops of March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI, after referring to the “remission of the excommunication” called his invitation to the four Bishops of the SSPX to return as if they were prodigal sons a gesture of goodness and paternal mercy.

    A smile that expresses the absence of obstacles
    However, he clearly and explicitly reminded them that “they do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church,” given that they lack canonical mission or status. Their suspension a divinis remains in effect as long as they do not accept Vatican Council II.

    Benedict XVI spelled it out in clear terms …: “This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature, and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. … The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society.”

    With this we see the objective of modernist and apostate Rome. But you and the other three Bishops of SSPX tell us that you are going to Rome to preach the truth and convert it, etc. … On March 12, 2009 - only two days later - in your quick response to Benedict XVI’s letter, you reached the apex [of shame] when you used his words to say: “Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar teaching.” This statement shows - forgive me, Bishop Fellay - your duplicity of language, a modernist and liberal language that manifests your falseness and betrayal.

    My expulsion is an abuse of authority that only favors the enemies

    Therefore, Bishop Fellay, it is absurd and unjust for you to expel me from SSPX for publicly and openly resisting your sinister politics of merging with [Vatican II], the landmark of the New Conciliar Church and its schismatic and apostate ecuмenism. In an abusive exercise of your authority, compromising with the worst and principal enemies of the Church, you dare to falsely and injuriously accuse me of being a rebel, insubordinate, disobedient, obstinate, scandalous, subversive, in need of correction, harmful and dangerous to the common good of the SSPX. I could launch these same accusations against you to your face, but [I will not because] the Divine Judge will do so when He will come to judge the living and the dead. I leave it for then, when I expect to meet you.

    However, I pray for you, that God will forgive you because you know not what you do – either with the SSPX or with me, whom you throw into the street like a vile delinquent – the same fate suffered by so many priests who opposed the innovations at the time of the Council. You expel me at the age of 55, after having giving myself with a complete and generous commitment to the service of the SSPX, which I served for 29 years, leaving behind everything, renouncing everything to serve Holy Mother Church in the SSPX, resisting and combating that apostate and heretical Modernism which today you lead us toward – softly and sweetly, but surely.

    A New SSPX is being shaped in the likeness of the New Church

    Today you expel me for a New Society [SSPX], recycled at the feet of the New Conciliar Church. I have never belonged, and I never want to belong to this New SSPX and New Church. I will continue to be part of the true Church and the true SSPX. You expel me, better said, you excommunicate me from your New SSPX, but I don’t care, just as Msgr. Lefebvre didn’t care when he was excommunicated from the New Church. This punishment, far from being a stigma or affront, is a true mark of decoration and proof of orthodoxy.

    He was not like you, the four Bishops, who shamefully asked the excommunication to be lifted before the eyes of the world, refusing to bear the weight of the cross, considering it an ignominy. Christ did nothing of this sort. He did not step down from His Cross (the greatest instrument of shame and suffering). He preferred to die crucified, ridiculed, spat upon, scourged, stripped of His clothes and abandoned by all. This is how He founded His Divine Church, leaving her as inheritance His Blood shed on the Cross.

    The apocalyptic significance of accepting the New Mass

    The stripped altar of the Novus Ordo Mass
    This inheritance signed with His Divine Blood, His whole Body immolated, is the Holy Mass. The same Mass that today you do no longer recognize as being the one, exclusive Mass when you accept the spurious, bastard New Mass … considering it the legitimate and principal (ordinary) rite, while the Tridentine Mass becomes an occasional (extraordinary) rite of the New Church, which is – or will be – the see of the Antichrist and the False Prophet, as Our Lady of La Salette predicted: “Rome will lose the faith and become the see of the Antichrist.”

    Let him who has eyes see, and let him who has ears listen.

    Ironically, today you chop off my head, without remembering that it was thanks to my intervention in the General Chapter of 1994 asking that Fr. Schmidberger not be re-elected that you accepted the position of General Superior. Indeed, for two years he had been arranging everything for his reelection. He was at the very point of achieving his aim when surprisingly, contrary to his plans, you were elected. I stood up to tell you to accept that position as a cross, following the example of St. Pius X …

    Association of this punishment with the Passion of the Church

    This entire apocalyptical drama the Church is living is prophetically encompassed in the Lenten liturgy in a special and solemn way during Holy Week and in the Sacred Triduum, which shows us the desolate Church, the stripped altar and the empty tabernacle. It is a clear depiction of what happened 2,000 years ago with the Passion and Death of Christ. It is also a symbol of what would happen to the Church, the mystical body of Chirst, during the apocalyptic end times …

    I ask God to forgive you, Msgr., along with the Chapter that - like a Sanhedrin - condemned me and expelled me. It reminds me of what the then elect people did to Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the words of the liturgy: “The impious ones said, let us destroy the just man for he is against our works” (5th antiphony of Lauds of Holy Saturday).

    But the words of the Prophet also come to mind: “The Lord God is my helper, therefore I am not confounded: and I have set my face as a hard stone, knowing that I will not be confounded” (Is 50:7).

    Thus, since my alternative was either to be silent in a vile silence before what I see or to clearly and firmly speak out at the price of my expulsion, I fulfilled my priestly duty without betraying God or my conscience. Now, my only choice is to wander carrying my head in my hands, as St. Denis did before he fell and died.

    I bid you farewell during this tragic and expressive Sacred Tridium of Holy Week, filled with mentions of what would happen to the Church in the last apocalyptic times, which is, nonetheless, the necessary prelude for the future Easter and Resurrection.

    Fr. Basilio Méramo
    Orizaba, Good Friday, April 9, 2009

    Posted April 22, 2009

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #19 on: January 01, 2013, 08:33:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Open Letter of Fr Carzozo to the Resistance
    Taken from TIA website:

    Open Letter to my Colleague Priests, Faithful & Friends

    Nova Friburgo, May 13, 2012
    95th anniversary of the 1st apparition of Our Lady in Fatima

    After reading the letter of the three SSPX Bishops to the General House, and the answer given by Msgr. Fellay and his followers (which have more or less the same errors as those manifested in the past by Dom Gérard, Fr. Rifan and Fr. Muñoz), I have nothing more to say than to express:

    1.   My total adhesion to the SSPX and its Founder and, therefore, my absolute support of the three Bishops who remain faithful to the work of Msgr. Lefebvre, in whom I place my obedience.

    2.   My non-recognition of the authority of Msgr. Fellay, given his pertinacity and distancing from the principles of the Founder, and [my non-recognition of the authority] of all those who share his position of surrendering to Rome, independent of the office they occupy, and, therefore, my rejection of such position of this Bishop, based on his opinions and polices that are totally removed from the policy of yes-yes, no-no of the Gospel and the foundations given by Msgr. Lefebvre. (1)


    Fr. Ernesto Cardozo
    3.   Our absolute rejection also to any accord with modernist Rome to which this Bishop, Msgr. Fellay, is shamefully dragging us in a suicidal operation, ignoring the counsels:
     Of the Founder;
     Of his three brothers in the Episcopate;
     Of diverse priests who, in the last years with due reasons, refuted his steps toward a communion with a Church self-defined as “post-conciliar” and not Catholic, which is enemy of Our Lord and His universal Kingship. (2) They ended by being expelled or resigning in order to not end in the lamentable situation we have reached today.
    4.   For these reasons, I call on the three faithful Bishops, who have an authority given to them by the Founder, to assume the command of the SSPX to avoid its dismantling and dispersion.

    5.   I call on the members and faithful who still maintain a minimum of loyalty, fidelity and obedience to the Founder to support in a clear and efficient way our three Bishops, and withdraw all support from those subservient followers of the one who permitted, by his consent, collaboration and silence, the present day state of affairs that is leading the SSPX to an irremediable division.

    Given that we have been confirmed, i.e., that we are soldiers of Christ the King by the anti-modernist oath we made at our ordination, in order not to end in perjury and apostasy, I call on all to clearly take the position of Tradition and support with all their efforts the defense of the SSPX, the secure boat in which we have reached so many goals and through which we survived the apostasy of our times, while we wait for the complete conversion of the Pope and Rome to the Eternal Rome.

    Trusting in the consecration of our religious family made in the past to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us combat with her and for her until the end. Amen.

    Fr. Ernesto J.J. Cardozo

    1.   In a letter dated August 18, 1988, Msgr. Lefebvre, referring to the agreement made by Dom Gerard, wrote to Dom Thomas, prior of the Monastery of the Holy Cross: “to maintain his liberty and reject any bond with modernist Rome.”

    2.   In a statement made this Friday [May 11, 2012] to Catholic News Service, speaking from the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, the Superior of the SSPX, Bernard Fellay, admitted discrepancies in the Society regarding an accord with the Holy See: “I cannot exclude that there might be a split,” he affirmed.

    Msgr. Fellay told CNS that in his opinion “the move of the Holy Father - because it really comes from him - is genuine.” “It doesn’t seem to be any trap …(sic!) So we have to look into it very closely and if possible move ahead.”

    Referring to the initiative of Benedict XVI, Fellay was quite clear: “Personally, I would have waited for some more time to see things clearer, but once again it really appears that the Holy Father wants it to happen now.”, “But we are not alone in working to defend the faith. It’s the Pope himself who does it … (sic!)”

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #20 on: January 01, 2013, 08:36:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Taken from the TIA website.
    Part I occurs earlier in this thread.
    Sorry I did not post them concurrently:                   

    The New ‘Hermeneutics’ of Bishop Fellay - Part II
    An Omissive, Authoritarian Leadership,
    Eager to Compromise

    Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz
    We left out the two first items of Part II of this Open Letter. Consequently, we did not maintain the original numeration of the subtitles. We also made some slight changes to correspond to the TIA editorial style and to our division of the letter into two parts. The title is ours. Part I is here. The Editor
    I would like to support what I affirmed in my last article by showing how the statements and actions of the current SSPX leadership are completely contrary to what Arch. Lefebvre clearly stated. And even if Arch. Lefebvre did not explicitly speak about some of them, these changes are in grave opposition to the common good of the Society and to basic common sense. …

    The need for a practical agreement

    … The leaders advocate an absolute need for a practical agreement with the current authorities, but without any prior doctrinal agreement, thus contradicting what Arch. Lefebvre had explicitly stated, especially after 1988, and what the General Chapter (which, let us remind Menzingen, has more authority than Bishop Fellay) decided in 2006. Their present search for a purely practical agreement is all the more surprising when one considers that the recent doctrinal discussions between our Theological Commission and the Vatican came to the conclusion that a doctrinal agreement with the Conciliar Church is impossible!

    Fr. Ortiz sets out his strong objections to the doctrinal compromises

    Therefore, for the Society to search for a purely practical agreement with present-day Rome, which continues to be in error, is equivalent to committing an "operation ѕυιcιdє: " We will be "absorbed" by the Conciliar Church, with all its structure not only rooted in the Council, but working to implement the conciliar and post-conciliar reforms. We know what happened to the eight traditional communities who rallied to this Conciliar Church without a preliminary doctrinal accord; inevitably the same thing can be expected to happen to us...

    Arch. Lefebvre clearly placed first and foremost, especially after the consecrations of Bishops, a solution to the doctrinal question as a prerequisite to any future dialogue with the Conciliar Church,: “I will place the question on the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you ... Are you in full communion with these Popes and with their affirmations? Do you still accept the Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to speak. As long as you do not agree to reform the Council considering the doctrine of the Popes who preceded you, there is no dialogue possible. It is useless. Thus the positions will be clearer.”(Fideliter, n. 66, Nov-Dec 1988, p. 12-13)

    The illusion of 'doing a greater good’

    Then, in order to find a "positive" justification for negotiating with conciliar Rome, the SSPX authorities affirm that this purely practical agreement will allow us to do a greater good, for, being "inside the visible Church" they will convert the Conciliar Church to Tradition... This is exactly the same argument invoked by Dom Gérard and the priests of Campos to justify their reunion with the conciliar Rome!

    Our Founder answered this deceptively "optimistic" perspective with great realism in an interview, saying, “Getting inside the Church, what does it mean? And, first of all, which Church are we speaking about? If this is about the Conciliar Church should we, who have fought against it for 20 years because we want the Catholic Church, return to the Conciliar Church supposedly to make it Catholic? This is a total illusion! Inferiors do not change superiors, but superiors change inferiors.”(Fideliter n. 70 July-August 1989)

    And the facts show us that the little good that those who rallied to Rome since 1988 have done does not justify the greater evil they have done by abandoning their faithful to the conciliar errors, to the new Mass, to justifications of the actions of the post-conciliar popes, etc...

    Are the preliminary conditions sufficient?

    Again, in order to justify this agreement, they affirm that the preliminary conditions set by the last General Chapter in July 2012, would be sufficient to avoid falling into the same “traps” as the rallied communities did.

    But apart from the fact that these conditions are insufficient and unrealistic to protect us from being "assimilated" and "neutralized" by the Conciliar Church, the General Chapter has forgotten the two most important conditions, clearly requested by Arch. Lefebvre: the conversion of the official authorities of the Church, namely, by their explicit condemnation of conciliar errors, and exemption from the New Code of Canon Law.

    Bishop Rifan's betrayal led to every compromise, including concelebrating a Mass in June 2011

    Arch. Lefebvre said that even if modernist Rome granted us some preliminary conditions, such conditions would be insufficient to make an agreement with them. Here is what he said to Card. Ratzinger: “Your Eminence, look, even if you give us a Bishop, even if you give us some autonomy from the Bishops, even if you give us the entire liturgy of 1962, if you give us to continue the seminaries and the Society as we do now, we cannot work together, it's impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person and the Church and we, we are working to Christianize. We cannot agree.” (Retreat at Ecône, September 4, 1987)

    In addition, Arch. Lefebvre put the conversion of Rome as a prerequisite to an agreement when he addressed these words to the four future bishops: “… being confident that without delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a perfectly Catholic Successor of Peter, in which hands you could deposit the grace of your episcopate in order that he confirms it.” (August 29, 1987)

    And concerning the Code of Canon Law, how could we keep our identity by continuing our combat, if we are under the common law of the Conciliar Church, which is the New Code of Canon Law? Don’t they see that the new code was specifically made to implement the conciliar reforms, but not to preserve tradition?

    Vatican II could be acceptable!

    And in order to overcome the doctrinal impasse that results from the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar “magisterium,” we have seen these SSPX leaders in their recent conferences, their sermons and their interviews show an explicit and repeated determination to minimize the conciliar errors in order to prepare the minds of the faithful for reconciliation with conciliar Rome.

    Did we not hear with stupefaction Bishop Fellay, in an interview with Catholic News Service, state that, “The Council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited,” and also that the conclusion of doctrinal discussions with Rome was that “… we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”! And: “the Council must be put within this great tradition of the Church, must be understood within this, and in correlation to it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely.” (May 11, 2012)

    Benedict praying with false religions at Assisi

    And the only (incomplete) revealed text concerning their last doctrinal preamble presented in Rome in April, and spoken of by Fr. Pfluger in a conference, not only betrays the same desire to minimize the conciliar errors but even to accept them: “…the entire Tradition of the Catholic Faith should be the criterion and the guide of understanding of the teachings of Vatican II, which in turn illuminates some aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in it, not yet formulated.”(St Joseph des Carmes, June 5, 2012)

    Was it not the fact that they passively observed the interfaith meeting of Assisi III without vigorously condemning it, even asking some members of the Society not to do so, also a revealing sign?

    And, what is of more concern is that their minimization of the errors of the Council seems to come from a while back… as Bishop Fellay already stated back in 2001 (!) in an interview that: “To accept the Council, we do not have a problem. ..This gives the impression that we reject all of Vatican II. However, we keep 95% of it.”(Swiss newspaper La Liberté, 11 May 2001)

    Instead of listening to the repeated warnings, asking them not to sign a practical agreement, they contemptuously replied to the letter of the three Bishops with harsh words... insinuating that these fellow Bishops were “sede-vacantists,”“schismatics “and were transforming the errors of Vatican II into “super heresies.”

    The list would be too long to enumerate the other statements of Menzingen, which move in the direction of a weakening on their doctrinal positions; the same weakening is found among other members of the Society who support the agreement. I have seen how some confreres, who I knew as once being firm in their condemnation of the Council and of the post-conciliar Popes, hold now “softer” positions and are very supportive of a rally to Modernist Rome...

    Grave errors against prudence

    In addition to the errors in their principles, we can also note serious errors of judgment, which were also the cause of the most serious internal division, in depth and extension, which the Society has ever known.

    By imprudent actions, they have preferred to sacrifice the unity and the common good of the Society to follow the agenda of the modernist Rome, as they have stated in their answer to the letter of the three other Bishops of the Society: “For the common good of the Society we would prefer by far the current solution of the status quo, but obviously Rome does not tolerate it anymore.” (14 April 2012)

    Bishop Fellay has also stated that it was almost "inevitable" that a part of the Society would not follow in case of an agreement with Rome: “I cannot exclude that there might be a split [within the Society].”(Interview to Catholic News Service). And thus he took the risk of gravely dividing the Society.

    Therefore, they preferred to ignore all the warnings coming from the three other Bishops, from some superiors and members of the Society and even from our fellow Traditional communities who asked them not to sign a purely practical agreement.

    This attitude has deeply shocked many members of the Society and created an internal division that has seriously undermined the leadership’s credibility to govern it, and among friendly communities undermined a confidence that has not been restored.

    Who duped whom?

    When we hear their explanations (excuses?) during the last months concerning the supposedly “real reasons” which have led them so far in the concessions to Modernist Rome, we see that it is not so much the Roman authorities who have deceived them, but rather that they have deceived themselves! For if they have decided, imprudently, to ignore the answers they got from the official Vatican channels about the true thinking of the Pope and to favor other channels, so-called “informal” ones, such a decision does not improve their reputation as prudent superiors...

    Thus they refused to see that everything these “unofficial” channels said to them was either gossip or manipulation, because their desire to reach an agreement became so much an “obsession.” So they finished by believing everything! Who’s guilty? They alone!

    How is it possible that they could act so carelessly in a such a serious matter? In any institution, even a secular one, such an act leads inevitably to the resignation of the person responsible, because too much trust has been lost. “We will take the responsibility,” as Fr. Pfluger threatened to do if the agreements will fail.

    Actually, if they have not resigned, it is because they continue to believe in an agreement. They have not yet learned a lesson from their actions! It is obvious that, despite some obstacles, Menzingen and the Vatican will do everything to “resuscitate” the talks. The expulsion of Bishop Williamson appears clearly as a “telltale sign” that the talks will resume, because the expulsion was, at least for the Vatican, a sine qua non condition in favor of a deal.

    In addition, we find in Bishop Fellay a grave lack of practical judgment about the Pope’s false ideas. How could he think that Benedict XVI would be ready in recognizing us “to put aside our acceptance of the Council,” as he wrote to him in June 2012? Did he not know that the Council is “non-negotiable” for Modernist Rome? Is this naivety on his part, or is he simply believing his desires to be reality? In any case, in this he shows that he gravely lacks prudence in doctrinal matters.

    Unjust persecutions

    Finally, to complete their blindness and their stubbornness on the path of “reconciliation” with modernist Rome, they have undertaken persecutions in order to suppress any opposition, both inside and outside the Society. Since then we have seen a series of intimidations, admonitions, mutations, delays in Holy Orders, expulsions of priests and even of one of our Bishops!

    Whoever does not agree with me will be put out

    They relentlessly persecute and expel people who oppose their reunification with Modernist Rome, and at the same time they say cynically that they intend to continue their opposition ... inside the Official Church once they have been recognized!

    In the final analysis, they have established an authoritarian government, a real dictatorship, in the Society, in order to remove any obstacle opposing their plans of reuniting with Modernist Rome.

    Thus, Bishop Fellay and his two assistants have radically changed the fundamental principles and objectives of the Society established by our Founder. They have also ignored major decisions of the General Chapter of 2006, which forbade a practical agreement with the Official Church without previous doctrinal agreement. They wittingly ignored the warnings of prudent people who counseled them not to make any practical agreement with Modernist Rome. They have jeopardized the unity and the common good of the Society by exposing it to a danger of compromising with the enemies of the Church. And finally, they contradict themselves by saying the opposite of what they affirmed only a few years ago!

    Therefore, they have betrayed the legacy of Arch. Lefebvre, the responsibilities of their positions, the trust of thousands and even of those who, deceived by them, continue to trust them.

    They have shown a resolute willingness to lead the Society, at all costs, to rally to our enemies.

    Regardless of whether the agreement with the Conciliar Church has not yet been done, or will not take place immediately, or perhaps never... a grave danger remains for the Society, because they have not retracted the false principles that have guided their destructive actions.

    I see now sadly that, by wanting somehow to identify abusively their judgments and their decisions with the Society itself, they have ultimately confiscated it as if it were their personal property, forgetting that they were only appointed to serve for a determined time.

    May God have pity on the Society!

    Posted December 14, 2012

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #21 on: January 01, 2013, 08:47:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Forum:

    These are the letters, posts, etc. that spring to my mind.

    Please feel free to post additional docuмents/arguments from resistance priests.

    But let's keep the thread a mere compilation of source materials.

    No commentaries please.

    The purpose of this thread is to compile a cuмulative body of docuмentation that can be easily accesses and read by those seeking an understanding of the current struggle within the SSPX.


    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 827
    • Reputation: +740/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #22 on: January 01, 2013, 11:01:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I hope this fits; I didn't see it posted in the thread yet.  I think it's worth keeping in mind that Fr. Hewko got in trouble with Fr. Rostand for this sermon.  

    Sermon of Fr. David Hewko in Winona, Minnesota
    June 17, 2012

    This day is a great joy for the Catholic Church, a great joy for the family of Fr. Reuter and all the families of the priests today offering their first Masses. What a great grace, what a great happiness for the Catholic Church of all time, the Catholic Church of Tradition!

    Ten years ago on June 29th, Fr. Reuter and I were there present for the death of Fr. John of the Cross, who was a model monk and priest. He taught us many things. He said many things. Among some of the pearls of wisdom he left us was, “monks (and we could add priests and probably nuns, too), monks, when they’re young they look holy, but they’re not. And when they’re middle aged, they don’t look holy, and they’re not. And when they’re old and bent over and feeble, they don’t look holy, but they are!” And that defines the life of holiness. It’s an everyday battle for the sanctification of our own soul as priests. To drink everyday from the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, the King; there we draw our strength. And to fulfill the one request, as Bishop Sheen says, the one request He asked of His priests… and, Fr. Reuter, I am sure you probably do already, and I encourage you to do this your whole priestly life; aside also from your Breviary, which is very powerful; aside also from the Holy Mass you will offer every day, is the Holy Hour. “Will you not spend one hour with Me?” And it’s there you will find your light, your strength, your wisdom, your romance, your love, your death, your glory. Because Jesus Christ the King dwells there for us in the Blessed Sacrament. And for the priest and for all religious and for the faithful that is our strength!

    And this shows the outpouring of the love of God. “Deus caritas est,” says St. John. “God is Charity.” And He pours out His love to souls like a second flood, over the human race, to drown us, as it were, in the incredible love of God. He gives us today a beautiful day, the sun, the gravity, the planets in perfect mathematical  circulation. He gives us the air we breathe. And He gives us His life in our soul by grace and gives us His own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist, a great Treasure. And this is the great motto of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, Credidimus Caritati.  We have believed in the Charity.

    And you good fathers and good mothers, you know, as you grow spiritually, you know what this means. Charity is in sacrifice. The life of a priest is a continual self giving. “He is an eaten man,” says St. John Vianney. The sisters and our dear brothers and monks submit to a Holy Rule, and through this, and their sacred vows, they become sanctified. And their life is the life of Charity, to be crucified as a victim with Jesus on the Altar, out of love for Him. So this is the real love. It’s not the love as many Novus Ordo bishops today are preaching in many churches throughout the world, l-u-v, a false charity; that we must acknowledge all the false religions, we must embrace the Jєωs and the Protestants and Lutherans and have ecuмenical services. This is not the true Charity, not at all! That has been condemned by the Church.

    Christ tells us, “My sheep hear My voice.” My voice. Whose voice is that? It’s the voice of God Himself, Jesus Christ the Eternal God made flesh, the King, the High Priest. And that voice, how do we know the truth, the knowledge, with all the tidal wave of confusion, with all the lies? Where do we find, where do we hear the Truth? Where do we go? Archbishop Lefebvre gives us the answer when he gave the Episcopal Consecrations in 1988. He said in his sermon, “I hear the voices of all these popes since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, telling us, ‘What will you do with our teachings? What will you do with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Do not abandon the Church.’” “And what we,” then he said, “what we condemned in the past, the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing.” The condemnations, where are these condemnations? Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Modernism, Zionism, they’ve all been condemned. And all the modern errors. And he said in his sermon, “I hear these voices echoing the voice of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, echoing the voice of the Blessed Trinity, ‘Do something about it or all will be lost! Souls will be lost!’” And that defines the fight that we’re in.

    Let me give a quote from the Archbishop himself. “And it is striking to see,” this is three years after the consecrations, “it is striking to see how our fight is now exactly the same fight as was being fought then by the great Catholics of the nineteenth century in the wake of the French Revolution. And by the popes, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and so on, Pius X, down to Pius XII, their fight is summed up in the Encyclical, Quanta Qura, with the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, and Pascendi of Pius X. These are the two great docuмents, sensational and shocking in their day, laying out the Church’s teaching in the face of the modern errors, the errors appearing in the course of the Revolution, especially the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This is the fight we are in in the middle of today. Exactly the same fight.”

    And Fr. Reuter, that’s why I am addressing you as a priest of the Society of St. Pius X. This is the founder speaking, this is our father speaking, echoing the words of the infallible authority of the constant Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  And as you know, the enemy is always about, and he seeks to destroy the Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. Listen to Mr. Prelot in his book, Liberal Catholicism. He was a senator in France. In 1969 he wrote this. Listen to his words, “We struggled for a century and a half to make our ideas prevail inside the Church, and we did not succeed. Then came the Second Vatican Council, and we triumphed. Ever since, the theses and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by the Holy Church.”

    What are these principles that the Freemasons since the French Revolution have so brazenly and boldly raised up in the Declaration of the Rights of Man against the Rights of God? What are these, summed up? Archbishop Lefebvre speaks about them all the time. Read his books, read his sermons to keep clear in this confusion of our times. And he sums them up into three: Religious liberty. Religious liberty, which is a very serious sin, a very striking, bold attack against Jesus Christ in His Kingship in society. And it is not small. This error is huge. And it’s been condemned by the Church over and over and over again. And it triumphed at Vatican II. And in the name of religious liberty, you realize, dear faithful, dear Fathers, what happened in the name of religious liberty. Small effects? No. The smashing , literally the smashing of the great Catholic countries. One by one they fell. And it was the Vatican itself who made the political moves to tear off the crown of Jesus Christ, to tear off the Catholic constitution of Ireland, Spain, Colombia, Philippines, just to name a few, and Italy in 1984. And do you realize what this means? It means the flooding in of the false religions. That means the state cannot profess the True Religion, cannot acknowledge Jesus Christ as King. And this is, as Archbishop Lefebvre often, very often said, repeating the popes of all time, this is public apostasy. This is putting Man in the place of God.

    And Fr. Reuter, this is our fight, this is it: To stand opposed to the whole wave of apostasy, standing on the rock-solid shoulders of the great popes. We have nothing to fear, nothing to worry about. There’s no confusion in their encyclicals, that’s for sure.

    Also, what else triumphed in the Vatican Council was ecuмenism. The false ecuмenism which is prevalent today, prevalent today! Listen to a high-up Freemason in France. He said, “One can say that ecuмenism is the legitimate son of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Israelites, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Freethinkers, Free-believers, to us they are only our first name. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is our family name.”

    And, of course, collegiality. Collegiality is the democracy within the Church. And the principle of religious freedom, that is, freedom of conscience, but the error is: “I can believe what I darn well please and still go to Heaven.” That’s condemned by the Catholic Church, by Jesus Christ Himself. “Who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” Christ is not an option. He is our God, He is our King, He is our Redeemer and there is no other!

    And that is why Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly said we have to reject the Vatican Council in her errors. And the errors are not small, little misconceived values. They are errors condemned by the Roman Catholic Church of all time with no ambiguity and with very clear and strong language. For example, the popes will call religious liberty “insanity.” St. Pius X will call it “delirium.” And listen to our Founder again, listen to him, because his words still ring true:

    “What have the liberal Catholics been seeking for a century and a half? To make a marriage between the Church and the Revolution.” And this, Bishop Tissier mentioned at the ordinations two days ago. “To wed the Church and subversion. To wed the Church and the forces that destroy society, all societies, families, civil and religious. This wedding of the Church is described in the Council. Take the schema, Gaudium et Spes; that’s a Vatican II docuмent.” So let nobody tell you it’s just a false interpretation or an exaggerated interpretation after the Council. The errors are built right into the Council. And if you have any doubts on that, read I Accuse the Council, by Archbishop Lefebvre. “It is necessary,” says the docuмent, “to marry the principles of the Church with the conceptions of modern man. What does that mean? That means that it is necessary to wed the Church, the Catholic Church, the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ with principles that are contrary to this Church, that undermine it and which have always been against the Church. Precisely it is this marriage that was attempted in the Council by men of the Church and not the Church. For the Church can never permit such a thing. For a century and a half, all the Sovereign Pontiffs have condemned liberal Catholicism, have refused this marriage with the ideas of the Revolution, those who adored the goddess of reason. The popes had never been able to accept such things.”

    “And during this Revolution priests were sent to the scaffold, their heads chopped off. Nuns were persecuted and also executed. Remember the pontoons of Nantes in France where faithful priests were assembled onto boats and were then sunk to drown. That is what the revolution did. And well, dear brethren what the revolution did is nothing compared to what the Second Vatican Council is doing, nothing! It would have been better for the thirty, forty, or fifty thousand priests who have left their cassocks and violated their vows and their oaths made before God; it would have been better for them to have been martyred or sent to the scaffold. At least they would have saved their souls!”

    And Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent always, every decade, every year in the battle for the Faith. So read, read what he says. And Fr. Reuter, deep in your mind, deep in your soul, already in the seminary the good priests here have trained you in all the great doctrines of our Holy Faith. And you know the acts of the Magisterium. You know these great encyclicals. You studied them. And now you must meditate on them, pray on them!

    And all of us, all of us, as we were told in the seminary and Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted it, “I was a liberal, I believed in separation of Church and State, I believed in the modern errors.” We’re all liberals in some way. We’ve got to wash it out, we’ve got to soak it out, we’ve got to fight it out, dig it out, pull it out every day. It’s in us, it’s in our blood, it’s in our society, it permeates, as Gregory XVI said, like a black fog out of Hell, the smoke seen by St. John in the Apocalypse has spread all over the earth which are the liberal errors of Modernism, Communism, Socialism, and all those errors.

    Three times Archbishop Lefebvre said in the sermon of the Consecrations, “We have to wait. We have to fight on and wait until Tradition finds its rightful place in Rome.” Three times he said this. Now I ask you, dear faithful, dear Fathers, and all of you, do we see Tradition back in Rome? Go down to your local diocese,  go down to your local parish church. Has Tradition come back, with all the charismatic dancing and altar girls and irreverence and sacrileges and goofy priests saying goofy things? Is that Tradition come back?

    And let’s look at Rome. And let’s look (obviously with respect and with filial respect and love even), at the Holy Father, the Pope. We are not sedevacantists. He is the pope. He is our father. But like a president, he can be a ‘so-and-so’ but he is still the president. And the pope is the Holy Father, he is. He’s the Vicar of Christ. But what are his actions? What have you seen? Everyday there is something new. And we can’t be deceived by the pro multis, a few crumbs to Tradition. When he visited the mosque, he took his socks off, faced Mecca. He has visited the Jєωs’ ѕуηαgσgυєs over and over again. The meeting of Assisi, the horrible scandal of Assisi. And Archbishop Lefebvre said about the spirit of Assisi, we must reject this because it will undermine our Faith, undermine the Faith of your families and your children. The spirit of Assisi is this ecuмenical spirit, based on the instructions of the Council of Vatican II. You’ll find it right in the texts.

    And lest we be deceived, dear faithful, lest we be deceived, I have in my hands the Summorum Pontificuм. Now I was a little naïve, too. When this came out, I thought, well, that’s great, the Latin Mass is finally freed; it’s been declared that it’s never been abrogated. This is great! But then I read the text and it’s quite shocking. And, Catholics, we have to oppose the errors in here. Yes, it is a concession, it is a concession. The Latin Mass is free, no one can hinder the priest from saying it. But listen to a few words of this. “It must be said that the Missal published by Paul VI,” that is, the New Mass, made with the help of six Protestant ministers, written by a Freemason, which attacks the Kingship of Christ, attacks the Real Presence, and as Fr. Zigrang told me, (he is a priest of the Galveston diocese, a Canon lawyer for fourteen years; he joined the Society of St. Pius X down in our priory in Texas). Fr. Zigrang told me the New Mass is most dangerous to the priest himself, to make him lose his Faith. And here’s what it says, “This Mass of Paul VI obviously is and continues to be the normal form, the ordinary form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council (that’s our Mass, the Tridentine Mass) and used during the Council will now be able to be used as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration.” In other words, it is okay to be used and we’ll tolerate it. It’s not hindered anymore. It never was. “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites.” Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of the one and the same rite.” You can’t mix water and oil. I read out a little more, “The new Missal will certainly remain, (the New Mass) will certainly remain the form of the Roman Rite not only on account of the juridical norm but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.” What if the faithful have lost their Faith and the priests have misled them all these years since the Second Vatican Council?  And they want bands and rock music and bouncing and dancing. That’s what the democracy wants. And I finish here, “There is no contradiction,” he says, (this is the Holy Father), “there is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.” No contradiction? What are the fruits? Archbishop Lefebvre said look at the fruits! You know, one time Rome told Archbishop Lefebvre, “Look, everything will be solved between us, this drama, if you accept the New Mass and just say it once in your seminary. Just say it once. No problem, everything over, politics done.” Archbishop Lefebvre, (a rock he always was, thank God), he said, “No, I cannot accept the New Mass, not even once, because it is a direct attack against the Faith, with its subtle phrases and subtle formulae.” So when we see the pro multis put back in the Consecration, alright, that’s great, hoorah for Tradition. But what is veiled in this? Archbishop Lefebvre and our superiors of the Society of St. Pius X, they say obviously we can’t accept that. Obviously, it’s unacceptable.

    The lifting of the excommunications, well, we’re still waiting for our Founder, for his excommunication to be lifted. But let me just draw another text from March of this year just in case any of us might be thinking, “Well, you know, this pope, is, he’s kinder to Tradition, it looks like things are going great, it’s another springtime.” We must not be deceived. We must pray, we must pray. Listen to this. This is the Letter for the Clergy, a letter to the priests from the Congregation for the Clergy, March of this year, not ten years ago, not thirty years ago, this year. And the pope calls for a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, October 11, 1962, fifty years ago, (have mercy on us!). He says further about the new evangelization for the transmission of the Christian Faith. I read: “We will therefore be expected to work in depth on each of these chapters (all the priests will have to work in depth on this, what is it?) on (here we go again) on the Second Vatican Council, so that it may be accepted once again as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century, a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the new century now beginning, increasingly powerful for the ever-necessary renewal of the Church.” And so, Vatican II all the way. Vatican II, dying? You see, it’s not. Second point: “On the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this is the New Catechism permeated with the liberal errors), “that it may be truly accepted and used as a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and sure norm for the teaching of the Faith.” Is that a sign of Rome coming back to Tradition, dear faithful? It’s in black and white.

    Remember what happened last October. You know, in the first Assisi, Archbishop Lefebvre sent to the Holy Father, (of course with all respect; he always had respect for the authorities). But he always spoke up for the Truth. And he sent to the pope those pictures, you remember the drawings? Pope John Paul II at the gate having the ecuмenical Assisi meeting and Christ the King and Mary saying, “No entrance into Heaven, no, ecuмenists can’t enter here.” And the devil is on the side whispering, “Over here, buddy.” It’s a frightening image, but it’s very real, very true. How serious this matter is! The Assisi meetings are an attack against Jesus Christ as God, Jesus Christ as King. It’s a very serious sin against the First Commandment. And Archbishop Lefebvre, seeing this, he said, “We have to absolutely refuse this apostasy.” And this pope, again, he’s our father and with all respect, what do we do? He has all the world religions and (more than that), invited the voodoo doctor, sorcerer, to perform some who-knows-what ceremony invoking the devils at the pulpit. And the atheist woman stood there, and she said, “I want to thank the Holy Father for inviting me to speak at this Assisi meeting to represent all the nonbelievers.” Dear faithful, it’s frightening and it’s real. It’s happening, it’s happening! Be under no illusion. It’s happening before our eyes!

    Two weeks before Assisi something also unheard of, in the history of the Council, but another step of degradation and apostasy, the docuмent that came out from Rome, calling for the one world religion, a one world government, a one world authority. What do you think that’s going to be? St. Pius X warned, in his Apostolic Mandate on the Sillon “these enemies of Christ are working for a one world government, a one world religion, where there will be no dogmas, no morals.” You can believe what you want as long as you accept to be part of this supra-Ecuмenical Church. It is very frightening to read the texts of Vatican II and the words of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of this pope, and of Paul VI. It’s frightening, though we can’t be under illusion.

    And we wonder why the Virgin Mary begged us to pray the Rosary that the pope consecrate Russia? Dear faithful, look at the results of those who have gone under Rome. I’ve had to talk to two priests personally. I battled with one, 7 hours long, not to go with Rome, to not compromise the Faith. And seven hours we battled. And he is saying the same thing about the popes, Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre. We can’t compromise, I told him. But then I asked him, “What about Religious Liberty?” He said, “Well, we have to dialogue about that with  Rome.” And another one, with St. Peter’s, said, “Well, we have to accept, we have to obey.” And they were told not to be polemical. And St. Peter’s has become totally neutralized, St. Peter’s Society. Look at Le Barroux. Archbishop Lefebvre said in five years they’ll have the New Mass. He was right. Look at Campos, glorious Campos under Bishop de Castro Mayer! It crumbled. The Redemptorists in Scotland, what happened? They’re neutralized, they can’t do anything. And the most recent: the Good Shepherd Institute. They were told to accept Vatican II and teach it in their seminaries. This happened this March! So the greatest service we can do to the Church, as our superiors know so well, is to oppose these errors and never compromise.

    And that is, Fr. Reuter, we have to stand as brothers, as brothers with all the Society priests, with all our four bishops, opposed to this onslaught against the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre himself told Pope Paul VI, he said, “Holy Father, either I follow the 262 popes before you and therefore go against you and John XXIII, or I have to follow you and obey you, and therefore disobey all of Catholic Tradition and all the 262 popes before you. What do I do? I have to stay with the Faith of all time.” And you know, the poor Archbishop, the badges of honor he had: suspension, excommunication, being smashed by the media, being turned away from so many friends of his. And he did not waver. And that’s what we must imitate, us priests. Again, the words of the Archbishop. This is Archbishop Lefebvre, this is two years after the Consecrations, “While we find ourselves in the same situation, we must not be under any illusions. Consequently, we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting the fight guaranteed by a whole line of popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as ‘Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?’ Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the nineteenth and of the first half of the twentieth century, of course, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it’s a new stage in the Church’s life, entirely new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point, they say it themselves, it is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church’s whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course. It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God. We must not worry. We must trust in the grace of God!”

    Dear faithful, just a little flashback, a little reminder of the glorious fight of our forefathers. At the French Revolution, the same principles that are being forced on us by Vatican II for the last forty years, the same liberal principles: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. At the French Revolution, you had the great Vendee. What was the Concordat between the Vendee and the Revolution? The Revolution crushed them. They fought hard, they fought nobly, they died noble in battle, like the Maccabee brothers. “Better to die in battle than to see the laws of our fathers trampled on and our sanctuary” turned into a dancing hall. Better to resist, and they did, and how much blood! How many mothers, children in the Vendee were slaughtered. If you want to hear a very good talk on that, listen to Mr. Christopher Check’s talk on the Vendee.

    And let’s look at Mexico, 1926-1930. Do we make peace treaties with the enemies of Christ? Do you know what kind of “peace treaties” they make? In 1930, I think it was July 29th (N.B. The actual date was June 21st). The pope told the Cristeros, because he believed his bishops who informed him that “the war was useless, useless bƖσσdshɛd.” And the good pope, Pius XI, he had to believe his bishops, but these bishops were liberals. And he believed them. He believed them. And he told the Cristeros, on that day, “Make a contract with the Freemasons, with the government, and the war will be over.” Useless bƖσσdshɛd? No. They were winning the war! All they had to do was take Mexico City, and they would re-establish a Catholic government. But what happened? That day they all were lined up in the town squares, all these great Cristeros, little boys standing next to their dads, with their Winchester .30-30s, and they obeyed. “Okay, we’ll obey the pope.” One by one, they threw down their weapons, down on the ground, one by one, whole troops of hundreds. And these Freemasons, do they keep their treaty, their word? They lifted their .30-30s and pistols and opened fire. It is a fact of history, faithful and dear Father, a fact of history that on that day, more were killed than the four years of the war. And Archbishop Lefebvre said many times in his sermons, “You don’t dialogue with the devil, with the enemies of Christ. You can’t.” And we must imitate these great fathers before us!

    So Fr. Reuter, to sum it up, obedience. The priest must be obedient, truly obedient to Tradition, truly obedient to the Catholic Faith of all time, and obedient to our superiors so long as they are protecting the Faith and upholding our holy statutes. But there was a time in history, not too long ago, when the priests should have been disobedient  and not let their parishes accept the New Mass and the new catechisms. So we have to be, Fr. Reuter, truly obedient, always.  Blind obedience is not Catholic! True obedience is founded on humility of heart to the voice of Our Lord the Good Shepherd and submits the mind and the heart to Him, speaking through one’s superiors, for the common good, and the lawful orders that go according to the Faith. Secondly, dear Fr. Reuter, study. You’re going to be very busy as a priest, but do make time to study; spiritual reading. Bishop Williamson used to tell us in the seminary, “An article a day keeps the modernists away. An article of the Summa of St. Thomas keeps the modernists away.”

    So soak yourself, continue, all of us priests, all these good priests here who came to ordinations battle scarred, wounded by the battles with Hell and the salvation of souls, working hard, up late at night sometimes, going to sick calls in the middle of the night, tending to the poorest of the poor and the most sinful of the sinful. Be like Fr. John of the Cross who told us, “Be a living Heart of Jesus. Let people see in you the sweetness of the Sacred Heart of Jesus,” that you will lay down your life for your sheep. And never tell someone, “I can’t come to the sick call this week, I’m too busy.” Or if they’re dying, “I’m too busy.” You will never do that. But it happens a lot. We hear a lot of that in the Novus Ordo. And so, they call us (SSPX) priests.

    And with sinners, as Fr. John of the Cross told us priests in the monastery, and Fr. Cyprian, “Love above all the greatest sinners.” Not their sins, but love their souls that Christ shed His Blood for. And in Confession, raise them to the hope of being washed in Christ’s Blood and living in God’s grace and of saving their souls! You will have this many times. Please, never be one of those priests, (and the Archbishop mentioned this also once), “Be firm in the confessional, but be very gentle and never severe,” never rude, never reckless with these souls. Every soul that comes to Confession and for spiritual advice, is a soul bought by Christ’s Blood, and we have no right to be not the Good Shepherd. We must be the Good Shepherd!

    And lastly, and I promise, this is the last point, only She can help us now, the Virgin Mother! And you are a priest, you were ordained a priest two days ago, and you share the priesthood, a quasi-hypostatic union. What incredible words of St. Thomas Aquinas! You are “another Christ”, born in the womb of the Virgin Mary. You were ordained a priest like Christ was in the cathedral of the womb of the Virgin Mary. Your priesthood is directly connected to Mary, the Virgin Mother. So give Her your priesthood! Live in the Virgin Mary. As Fr. Le Roux said last week in Auriesville, “Priests must not only be devoted to Mary, be in Mary, live in Her.”

    So, stand strong and souls will turn to you, and never compromise. In 1937, when all of Spain was being recklessly destroyed by the Communists, in Barcelona alone, the priests were arrested, 400 of them, martyred. Not one of them apostasized. Not one! They were good priests. One of them stood before the firing squad of the Communists, and the Communists said, “Alright, do you have any last words before we blow your brains out?” He said, “Yes, I do.” He said, “Firstly, I don’t need, (when offered) a handkerchief around my eyes.” He said, “When I was a boy, I prayed for three things. One: That I might be a priest. Two: That I might die a martyr. And three: If I die a martyr, I take a soul with me. God has granted me two of my wishes. What more can I ask of so loving a God?” And right then, one of the Communists soldiers, moved by grace, threw down his rifle, walked up to the priest, stood by him and said, “Father, you’ve got your third wish!” Both of them were executed, and their souls flew straight to Heaven. That is our model for this battle.

    So let’s pray the Rosary, dear faithful, that the pope consecrates Russia. That’s the real solution! Negotiations,… all that, the real solution is that the pope consecrate Russia. And let’s go, Fr. Reuter, right now, you are going to go to the altar and re-enact the great Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Let’s adore Him. And pray for Fr. Reuter in his first Mass that he be a faithful priest with all his brothers ordained together, that they fight all the way to the end. And like that priest, die ready for battle, die with your battle boots on and attain Heaven, and join our dear Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre!

    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!

    In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 827
    • Reputation: +740/-114
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #23 on: January 01, 2013, 11:10:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Again, an older item, but hopefully still fits, and I did not see it in the collection of Fr. Chazal items on a previous page:мent/pub?id=19K...w3WDGcka-0OXB8o

    WAR ON










    Bohol 18 May,
    OLVC, Manila 20 May,
    Seoul, 27 May 2012.

    My dear faithful,

    Part I

    The Fornicating New Rome

    Last week I woke up reconciled with the new Rome - I thought for 12 years that it would never come to this, but while I was napping, the Vatican II of the SSPX got on its way and now it is the windows of the Society that open themselves to the New Rome, through the lever of false obedience.

    But the New Rome is to be destroyed; she is Carthage to us. We have nothing to do with it; We have no canonical structure to do with it, we have no practical agreement to do with it, we have no point of doctrinal convergence to do with it. If Our Lady said “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist”, Rome will indeed lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist, despite all the beautiful diplomatic fixes we can think of, with the help of the Pontifical & Cardinal Regalia, Palaces, Sacred monuments, purple cassocks and fringed cinctures, smooth roman talk and skilled efforts of reconciliation, permission to say masses, trappings of tradition and peanuts of cardinal Hojos.

    The new Rome remains death, not for us who have not joined it, but for millions and millions of souls who, for now 50 years could have gone to heaven by staying Catholic or by entering the Catholic Church.

    And since what is proposed to us; to be directly under the Pope; (nothing new by the way, since it was always proposed to all those who ended up recycled to modernism); Let us look carefully at the one to whom we wish to entrust ourselves, Pope Benedict XVI, mysteriously and validly reigning over the official church.

    Pope Benedict XVI, previously Cardinal Ratzinger, is our most consistent, rational, methodical, organized and effective enemy. He has studied our case for decades; he has almost trapped Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.While sharing the same heretical theology as the other heretic leaders, he has groomed a perfectly conservative & reassuring image. The man has never thrown anyone into prison; he has never fought us with any weapon but his pen (and sweet melodic voice), and has been most successful.“The power of the horses are in their mouth” (Apoc. IX,19).

    “But father, how can you condemn such a man, the very head of the visible church, like that, a priori and with such vehemence?”“Why such a hardening?”
    A priori condemnation is bad, but if condemnation comes after a huge mountain of evidence, past & present, such condemnation needs to be strong. Wolf is wolf. If wolf is, wolf thinks as wolf, acts as wolf, and kills as a wolf.

    Think as a wolf: After his bad seminary training, Fr. Ratzinger became an adviser of Karl Rahner, maybe the worse “peritus” of Vatican II and revealed his core thinking in the book so traditionally entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology” which I read. His established thinking is that there is no established and stable concept in anything religious BUT ONE MAY NOT GO TOO FAR INTO MUTATING DOGMATIC CONCEPTS. People’s minds work at different speed; we need an adaptable and multispeed modernism.Pascendi denounced modernism in 2D; Benedict XVI is modernism in 3D.

    This great skill of his seduced many of his modernist confreres, and so it came to pass that Cardinal Ratzinger became the architect of the New Catechism, the Declaration on justification, the Declaration of Balamand, the whole Assisi project… Almost all the disastrous pronouncements of Pope John Paul II can be retraced to him, and can we say that he has changed his mind today? Absolutely not, for when he read his own recent decree of “Beatification” of John Paul II, he stated at length that the main sign of John Paul II sanctity is the council and its strenuous application to the church throughout his pontificate.

    That is why it is so important to look if Benedict XVI acts as a wolf now, not yesterday but now; for the big temptation is to believe that things have changed and that Benedict XVI is really leaning towards us, in such a wise as to became almost one of us… How beautiful and hopydopyful, isn’t it?

    But no; 4 times no at least: as to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism& Protestantism.
    Hinduism: When I was in Bombay around 2006, I got to read what Benedict XVI had to say about inculturation in India. He praised it, but with reservations. Isn’t that nice and traditional, reservations about inculturation? Well, except for the fact that he reproached the Indian bishops to insert only the Hindu elements into Catholic worship, instead of putting enough of the Buddhist culture; and this is very sad because the Buddhist religion originated from India and Buddhism is a great religion…

    Note well: No Indian plumes & feathers, no kumkum on the forehead, but a more consistent and intellectual approach.

    Islam: There again, Benedict XVI didn’t kiss the Koran, that goes too much against his Bavarian categories of the sensibility. But when he went the Mosque of Istanbul, he took off his shoes, went to the Mirhab, folded his hands in the Moslem position, turned towards Mecca and prayed with the other Moslems surrounding him. The whole thing lasted a few minutes, never to be repeated again; but there again, one can see the same consistency of practice. Benedict XVI is a little like the tape of a surveillance camera; quite boring to watch except on a few horrific frames.

    Judaism: The lack of assiduity for Paganism & Islam in Benedict XVI,isclearly compensated by his fervor and admiration for the Jєωιѕн religion. Almost every year, the Pope goes to the ѕуηαgσgυє and makes long speeches whose main idea is “The Old Covenant is still valid and not revoked”.

    How can one be more clearly opposed to the Catholic faith? To the Epistles of St. Paul? This is so grave that the Ecuмenism of Benedict XVI seems to suggest that one religion is above the others, namely Judaism.And the choice for Judaism is judicious, because Judaism is the worse false religion, in that it denies so perfectly and vehemently the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Protestantism: The above is not to suggest that Benedict XVI does not understand the profound spirituality of Martin Luther. But there again, Benedict will go beyond John-Paul. He will enter the protestant temple in full Pontifical Regalia, (not just in white cassock) and participate in the first part (remember, Benedict XVI is a conservative, only half way bad) in a protestant service. His praise for Luther is more detailed and profound; spiritually and theologically motivated: how could it be otherwise; he is a German Pope.

    Let us not forget that he is the First Pope to have breached the Catholic Doctrine on Artificial Contraception or to invite Atheists at the prayer meeting of Assisi, or to meet a female Bishop in Bishopess’ attire, or to give communion to a protestant (Brother Roger of Taize) etc.

    The recent interview called “The Salt of the Earth” shows a completely confused mind, incapable of stable concepts & dogmas, a mind without Faith say bishop Tissier De Mallerais (whose book could not be published for some time by Clovis for technical reasons; and is not going to be translated by the Angelus out of respect for the sensitivities of the American District). Benedict XVI still sees renewal in the face of destruction. He has made the prowess to write a book on Jesus without mentioning, even once, his divinity. He is completely obstinate in his thinking, therefore any doctrinal discussion with his experts were bound to fail.

    Kills as a wolf. If one is so obstinate in his ideas, there is no reason why he should change his actions. Benedict XVI, as far as we know, does not say the True Mass. He did say a mass facing the Orient in the Sistine Chapel but explained immediately that it was because the place doesn’t have an altar facing the people and that the text he recited was the text of the new mass, that mass that sends so many people to Hell.

    Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger said the true mass in the past, but that was to set up the Fraternity of St. Peter (That great antechamber for priests before being recycled back into the local diocese) or in Fongombaultin order to lead the meetings to discuss the “Reform of the Reform”.

    Per se Benedict XVI does not believe in the True Mass; for him it is a museum piece. Just recently I read in the Wall Street Journal, in the plane, about his visit in Cuba. Very surprisingly, Fidel Castro asked him when he met why did the Church had to change the liturgy. Benedict snapped back immediately: “For renewal”.This is the typical answer of a diehard progressivist.

    His obstinacy in error leads him to support all those neo Christian and protestant tainted charismatic contraptions, because these create the false idea of restoration of things, like the Opus Dei, and rehashes whatever is left of the piety of the people back into the sewer of all heresies. Benedict XVI is a genius.

    If you want to know who a leader is, you also have to look at whom he appoints, for to govern is to delegate. The three topmost positions in the church are that of Secretary of State, Congregation for the Faith, and Congregation for Bishops.

    Cardinal Bertone is Secretary of State and a clear delinquent. Unlike Benedict XVI, he is an open modernist, like his famous predecessors Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Casaroli. He has the bad temper of Villot and the maneuvering spirit of Casaroli and he sees to it that their legacy be maintained, namely that all civil governments remain separated from the Church in Catholic countries and encouraged to be run according to Masonic principles. The Ten Commandments of the Secretariate of State are the rights of man based on the dignity of the human person. Hence world peace requires that no serious steps should be taken to stop the persecution of Catholics in antichristian countries and that the efforts of those who still want to remain Catholic over there be discreetly thrown into disarray, like in China, in Russia, and in the Muslim world.
    Cardinal Bertone got our good friend, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, excommunicated. He is mainly known to us for the burial of the message of Fatima, even if he was not he who engineered it in 2000.Such a task belonged then to the Master: Cardinal Ratzinger.

    Next in line is Cardinal Levada, a close friend and successor of Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He does not seem to be doing much but a vital dossier has been placed on his desk: The dealing with the SSPX . . . .  But look how good he is tearing us to pieces.

    Cardinal Levada’s past is not well known to us and that’s a pity. When he was bishop of San Francisco he had parishes for gαys and lesbians; so told me our faithful of the Bay Area. It is also well known that he tried to get the late Fr. Heidt back into the diocese, sitting in majesty in his office; flanked by canonical experts & theologians ready to fire. Fr. Heidt was unfazed: “Ok, I’m in, take me back, but on one condition” – “which is?”– “ I don’t want to see any gαy priest even near me in my parish and in my parish activities” – “I’m sowyfoatha, I can only say no” – “same here” replied the old warrior and he left the room. Fr. Heidt is right; what are we doing with those people?

    Only a few people know much about Cardinal Ouellet the Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Like the other two above mentioned Congregations, his Congregation is busy in maintaining the Church in her desolate state at every local level or diocese. Indeed it would be a big disaster for the novusordo, if out of 4000 bishops or so, just one would turn out to be entirely traditional. Not only that, but the Congregation looks to it that there is no bishop saying the correct mass, coming from the rank of the Ecclesia Deigroups.And if one can be found in Campos, he has to try to govern his followers under the leadership of another Bishop, that is, the official Bishop of Campos.

    Souls are sent to hell by the failure of the local clergy to teach their flock the faith and lead people to do penance for their sins.There is no better way to do that than by giving them consistently bad Bishops, some less bad and less aware of what they are doing than others, I agree, but all of them bad without exception.

    One could go through all other lesser congregations and see the same pattern of organized liquidation of the Catholic Church, but I will retain only one for the sake of brevity: the Ecclesia Dei commission. While the new Rome wishes to embraces us so tenderly with one arm (Cardinal Levada), with the other arm (MgrPozzo), within the same month, it is strangling to death the Institute of Good Shepherd. This Institute is requested to fall in line with Vatican II for its preaching, seminaries, for the occasional saying of the new mass and for an entire collaboration with the local diocese, contrary to assurances made five years earlier. How on earth are we going to believe that the new rome is not going to make the same request after five or six years… the little SSPX, it is said, thinks that it can wed the official church without losing the virginity of its Faith.

    Part II

    The Adultery from the Truth

    In the light of the above, we can now determine that to place ourselves under Benedict XVI is an adultery from the truth. Pope Benedict XVI is the best of his kind; the Mercedes Benz, Porsche and BMW of modernism. In the present concrete circuмstance, such a folly is a treasonable departure from the truth, the handing over of Tradition itself, and the preparation for the massacre of the souls of those who placed themselves under the protection of the Society for now forty years.

    Most happily, Providence has always intervened to stop the irreparable from happening, but it would be most useful and safe to know, ahead of time, what sin is entailed by an agreement with the new rome.

    FAITH: It cannot exist without confession. The SSPX was designed by its founder to be a perpetual army of the faith, fighting Carthage. It can and will take many blows, but if it steps down from its public stand against error it is to self demolish. Of Satan, Our Lord says “In veritate non stetit”“He failed to stand in the truth” (John VIII,44); the same could be said of us if we mellow. Our Lord argues with the Jєωs on the standpoint of the truth; a major theme of the whole Gospel of St John in which, very often, authority sides against the Truth. St John is no revolutionist; if authority follows the truth, then of course authority must be followed. But authority can fail with respect to the truth, and not infrequently.

    When Faith is in danger, our duty to it becomes immense, and such a duty is the object of the sacrament of Confirmation which anoints the forehead with Chrism against blushing in the fight of the Faith. St Paul says that the heart believes the Faith for its own justification, but, more importantly that the confession of the Faith has to be made for its salvation, and the salvation of erring and confused bystanders. Most of us became Traditional Catholics from the confession of the faith of other Catholics; that is about to change as soon as the new rome puts us in a position of silence about its errors.

    Short of destroying us outright, rome wants to contain us in a nice containment unit. But a containment unit is a prison, no matter how comfortable it is and well equipped. Our Faith does not simply belong to us, it belongs to the candlestick, it belongs to those in the world that shall take advantage of it, and add momentum to the pressure on rome to return to the Faith.

    HOPE: For in this dark hour, instead of a fake return, isn’t a full return of rome to the Eternal Rome what we are looking for? The Book of the Apocalypse warns against the deception of Sardis, who has the name of being alive, but is in fact dead (the Persians stormed Sardis by deception) (Apoc. III,1), against the deceptive nature of the pale horse (neither entirely black, nor entirely white; whose rider’s name is death, because the admixture of truth and error kills more souls than the blatant heresies of the black horse and the violent persecutions of the red horse (Apoc. VI,8)), and against the devouring locusts that have the appearance of Charity (Apoc. IX,7).

    Our Lady is most white, not in any grey, and she loves the tidiness of an army in battle array. She has not promised a Pope doing half of a job consecrating Russia (with Russia not converted as a result), still less a Pope who deforms her message, but a Pope who will do exactly what she requests. Such a mention of a great Pope is also in the prophecy of St Malachi and other prophecies.

    How can it be otherwise, since the whiteness that a pope wears signify the purity of his doctrine and the sanctity of his actions as Leader of the sole society capable of saving the human race. Our hope is that the Church becomes again the ark of salvation, becomes capable to beget children for Heaven. That is the Mission and the Charity of the Church.

    CHARITY: In the circuмstances of today, any agreement with the rome of today is a denial of the MISSION of the Society, which was designed precisely to rescue souls FROM the clutches of wolfy popes, cardinals, bishops and priests…worldwide, as the official church fails temporarily in its mission.Onecan’t dodge the clutches of the beast by placing oneself under its head but by staying altogether out of the range of the beast.

    Secondly, because so many SSPX priests do not agree with the proposed 180 degree turn, it is necessarily going to end up into a horrible split. We are going to look like a sect, one side of the split fighting “the other side”; making lawyers rich in figuring out which side is going to keep this or that asset of the SSPX.

    This in turn is going to discourage many of our faithful who do not have the elements to judge which side is which, and push away the newcomers of Tradition at the sight of this bitter incoming infighting.

    That is why I cannot understand at all  that cruel phrase “We cannot rule out a split”. On the contrary, it takes just a restating of our doctrinal stand and an assessment of the new rome based on reality to bring a state of unity amongst ourselves. Truth only gathers, and if the SSPX weathers this tempest, it will become unsplittable for many years to come.

    Isn’t a split what the cruel Rome of today looking for? Are not the Sedevacantists having the time of their life just watching us? ѕυιcιdє is a sin against Charity; we are not in the right to take the life of an entire Congregation, and that problem must be the sole concern of the next General Chapter.

    PRUDENCE:Archbishop Lefebvre never trusted the new rome, even when he was in negotiation with it, because he had a clear vision of their constant operation of error. But even if the romans were not capable to deceive him, he clearly stated that the experience should never be repeated after his departure, until rome returns entirely to Tradition. How can we have the pretention of being smarter than the Archbishop, who escaped the wily romans only by a whiss. And if we don’t share the same firmness of analysis of Archbishop Lefebvre, how can we claim to elucidate the practical proposals that rome is constantly dangling before us?How can we accept to take even a small risk (and the risk is actually enormous) of losing so much at the hand of proven enemies?

    The study of Barbier and Cretineau-Joly played an important role in the practical and doctrinal conduct of the Archbishop. In these two authors it is clearly stated that after its initial destructive period (the Terror, in the case of the French Revolution, and the sixties and seventies in the case of Vatican II), the Revolution elects to soften its approach to its enemies. This is called the Thermidorian phase of the Revolution, whose best illustration was the Treaty of La Jaunaye that concluded the wars of Vendee by dividing the Catholic army between those who were tired of the war and the irreducible followers of Charette who got liquidated once they were placed in a state of isolation from the others, who were less willing to fight. Throughout the XIXth century, French Catholicism kept on splitting between liberals and traditionalists, all the way down to Vatican II. All Revolutions have their phase of apparent mellowing in order to isolate those who still want to fight it, that is why it is so important for us not to confuse the false restoration, the false return of rome to Tradition with the real and total conversion of the Papacy, which will happen, but in God’s time. We should not dream to ourselves happy endings to this crisis; “Custos quid de nocte?”, says Scripture, “Watchman, what of the night?” Is the light of day coming today or is it some deceptive light?

    The agonizing question for us is what is the proportion in our ranks, of those who are tired of this war against the new rome, who think it is just a useless, damaging and prideful pretension of heroism.

    JUSTICE:“But, Father, Rome is proposing to repair the injustice done to us, Rome wants to be fair and gives us a place.” First of all we are not fighting in order to cleanse our honor, we must be instead like Suzanna who accept to undergo the unjust accusation, or like Rebecca who says “Let this malediction be upon me, my son”. Our situation is that of a son cast out of his house by his drunken father who resists the abuse of his mother. After a few days, the father accepts to reinstate the son back into the house on the condition that he stops rebuking him about his few drops of whisky and little bouts of temper against his mother. The conduct of the new rome is altogether irreprehensible, the father must stop his abuse before he can reinstate his son.

    FORTITUDE: The aim of war is the destruction of the will to fight in the mind of your opponent.A general differs from a businessman or a bureaucrat in the sense that he must be prudent like them, but also retain this prudence under fire (cf Sun Tsu, “The Art of War”). Patton said to his soldiers “Fear nothing but your general; for if he is good and you are bad, he will whip your ass; whereas if he is bad, it is the enemy that shall whip your ass!” I truly hope that no Sister is reading this paper, otherwise I’m in trouble.

    Bishop Fellay talks about threats coming from rome, but what are these terrible things? A new excommunication or suspension? We are well trained into being excommunicated and suspended because of the truth, and also one may note that for a punishment to be effective, the punisher should believe in what he inflicts. Those threats of rome are for rabbits: In the past, excommunication would mean imminent danger of eternal damnation; but the new rome believes only in universal salvation, so that the worse danger for us would be to be relegated to some layer of communion more peripheral than others, but still we would be better off than the Muslims, pagans and atheists, who are all members of the all-inclusive balthazaric church, whether they like it or not.

    (The only one of whose salvation we can and must despair is not Judas and Lucifer, but Bishop Williamson who, no one can deny, dared to commit the most horrible crime in the entire history of humanity.)Therefore, no, Bishop Fellay will always be fine.

    TEMPERANCE: It is not known enough that one of the acts of the virtue of temperance is to reject pride, flattery. In this, today’s roman authorities are spectacular experts. They give us permission to say mass anywhere in Rome, have our visiting priests stay in roman palaces, including the Holy Office, just behind St Peter’s basilica. They constantly tell us, just like Cardinal Gagnon in 1988, that our work is very valuable, and all the more valuable since the Church of today is rocked by so many problems, and that we must bundle effectively the conservative forces within the church to fight the progressivists (just like conservative fight liberals in liberal democracies, worldwide, failing so pitifully). Their food is gorgeous, the ballet of purple cassocks, birettas, fringes and laces is back, like in the good old days, and there is at all time a gilded door, wide open, inviting us to join in that ballet.If the lentils are good, I won’t deny it, but let them eat them themselves and I will keep the Faith of my inheritance.

    Therefore, as far as I can enjoy that faculty in my priestly power, I curse this sevenfold sin against the seven virtues and the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. A sin that starts by an indirect but very real assault on the virtue of Faith, and that is followed, in all logic, by the fall of the six other dominoes.

    Part III

    The Thwarted & Tempting Treason
    (Situation as of May 25, but in need of periodic reassessment)

    We had it coming, for at least 12 years, but the faithful and many priests were given no warning of this huge change of direction, which makes the U-turn to Rome enter into the genus of deception in action or treason.

    For the moment the treason is thwarted, thanks to God, thanks to the resistance of many and the opposition of some modernists and French Bishops…but it is still trying to outflank. Therefore we are in need, like on a battleship, of a good fire control to readjust the landing of the shells on the new position of the enemy… and then, but only then will the enemy’s ship go to the bottom!

    Now, before I allow you to read this letter any further, I request you, my dear reader, to sign this preamble: “I, the undersigned dear reader, hereby declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay hasn’t signed anything yet with the new rome, even if he suffers from a powerful desire to do so, and therefore that he is for the moment, until the last split second separating his ink from the paper, entirely excluded from the category of treason and remains our beloved and respected Superior General or the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth. Date: Anytime between now and Bishop Fellay signs. Signed: Dear Reader.

    With this docuмent I am safe to proceed, because I know that some of you may accuse me of making my superior a traitor, further down this sermon.


    That will very soon become out of date

    The incoming General Chapter is like an incoming Vatican II: instead of being dogmatic as it should  have been, Vatican II was a pastoral council, and the incoming SSPX Chapter, instead of being a doctrinal Chapter, to address the emergency at hand, is now wrongly named administrative Chapter. Not that administrative details should be overlooked, but their place is at the end, just as actions follow ideas in the Epistles of St Paul.

    Any General Chapter convenes to address issues facing a Congregation. Now, the SSPX faces its most serious issue since its inception: it is splitting doctrinally. (Read the letters of the 3 vs 1 bishops).Therefore, anyone with a sound mind would put current affairs in the backburner and place the one doctrinal problem alone on the center of the table. In these circuмstances, the very name of Administrative Chapter, (correct if may be in ordinary time), sounds cruel, like the willful covering of a serious danger. That chapter can only be named DOCTRINAL Chapter.

    But even if this could be granted, the Devil will continue to outflank, and for the Devil, the next solution, is to cancel, or even better, postpone the General Chapter, according to the four steps of governance when a serious crisis is happening

    Nothing is happening, then

    Something might be happening but we cannot yet determine exactly what it is, then

    Something is happening, but there is nothing we can do about it, then

    It happened; therefore, let’s study the next serious crisis.


    But lets go back and study how our stance got eroded in the course of years.


    What is very worrying at the onset is this newfound culture of secrecy that was not practiced by the Archbishop when he came to Rome. Upon his return he would candidly expose everything he did to his seminarians, and the substance of his dealings would be public news within 48 hours.

    Now, in his reply to the three Bishops, Bishop Fellay states that he cannot and will not open himself, even to them Bishops (no small-fries seminarians). Read carefully the paragraph starting “You cannot know how much”, and you can clearly see that the trust is gone.

    It ain’t funny to be a SSPX Bishop these days, and I am not referring to the one who almost got expelled last September and who gets threatened every morning; I am referring to the Lamb and the Dove.

    For the small priestly fries, in our internal bulletin, came the scary good news that “now the time has come to be recognized by the official church”, or that we are just waiting for a canonical structure from rome once rome has signed our doctrinal statement.Then, inevitably, passengers start to scream, because the plane has switched off the gasses and is losing altitude rapidly; then the pilot puts on the gasses again, saying “I was just joking, nothing is signed, YET.”

    All this uncertainty is a new cross for us, and breeds a general state of unease.


    We tied ourselves, and the promise was frequently restated, that a practical agreement should not take place without an agreement of doctrine between us and rome. Now, the doctrinal discussions have just failed; Benedict XVI just came out of Assisi III, and we want a canonical solution with the new rome?

    The signing of a practical agreement with the official church is a matter or primal importance for a religious congregation. That is why, again, it was promised to us that before taking such a momentous decision, the general council of the Society would convene first a General Chapter. Now, we hear of a signing in the month of May or June; how is that possible?

    No due consideration is given to the fate of the other congregations (Dominicans, Capuchins, Benedictines, Carmelites, etc.) and all the independent priests that work alongside with us, should we sign. Their future is at stake and their position in the new church would be even riskier than ours and no one gives a dime?

    Did we study how rome is going to countenance our convalidating, that is, our doubting the novus ordo Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders? How are they going to deal with our marriages? But the Pope can’t hold it any longer and we must elect all form of precipitation!

    Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that the new code of canon law is worse than the new mass, or did he not? If we agree to a canonical agreement and put ourselves in the jumpsuit of a canonical structure, under what canon law do we entrust ourselves?


    What is the deep meaning of a practical agreement with rome anyways? It is when the Pope will only say the True Mass, because, in order to say mass in the first place, the priest makes use of his practical intellect, where, says St Thomas, the Sacramental Character of Holy Order is impressed indelibly. Now, that is a practical agreement that I can sign; no ambiguity, and an effective agreement or return of Rome to Tradition.

    A doctrinal agreement would be the same; that is, not a condemnation of some interpretation of Vatican II, but the condemnation of the entire text of the Council, with all its time bombs, with all its half-truths, with all its blatant errors (religious liberty, for instance), with all its traditional sounding pages alternating with modernist ones, with all its omissions (of the condemnation of Communism, of the definition of Our Lady Mediatrix and Coredemptrix), with all its new notion of the Church, its ecuмenism and manifold errors, and in the end with all its consequences. One cannot separate, many of our studies and congresses clearly showed it, the traditional part of the Council from the erroneous one. One cannot separate the very text of the Council from its consequences. One cannot separate a good and bad interpretation of the Council. For so long, we thought we were all agreed about this, and now we are supposed to change entirely that most vital stance of the Archbishop!

    A doctrinal agreement needs to be a common and complete rejection of the entire text itself, in one piece, of Vatican II; and that truth and error cannot be disentangled from a Council that draws its dangerousness from its ambiguity. Remember Pascendi!


    The Rosary Crusades are good instruments to measure our gullibleness and the gullibility of our faithful; they give an automatic blessing to what we already plan to do in advance and a perfect warning to the official church that we are coming to buy something from them. But there are limits: Did we seriously believe in 2007, when we came to Rome, bouquet in hand, that rome was going to give to the entire Church something extremely good (but with necessary imperfections as usual), straight from the hands of Our Lady, instead of a mere repeat of the conditions of the 1984 Motu Proprio, namely : - accept Vatican II

     - don’t attack the new mass?

    Answer: Absolutely yes; and not only that, but with this new distinction between ordinary and extraordinary, the True Mass is put technically in a lower level than the mass of Luther.

    Why all this gullibility? Because, this time, it is not like the other time; concrete circuмstances have changed and this repackaging of the 1984 Motu Proprio was absolutely sensational. With such a glittery presentation, who cares if it is diamond or plastic?

    Exit bachelorette #1; enter the dainty 2009 Rosary Crusade #2:

    This time it is the solemn high holy reparation of the injustice done to us, the removal of the excommunication, but! Wait a second, if rome merely lifts the excommunication, it means it was valid in 1988 and the Archbishop died in his sins. How can Our Lady go for that?

    The 2007 and 2009 rosary crusades are a mockery of Our Lady…but surprisingly, the third one doesn’t sound bad. But I may be wrong, becoming a flaker myself. And are we going to get goofed again this time? Heaven knows…

    Gullibility is such that it looks for occasions to believe. In December 2010 we joined this wonderful Pope in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament for the defense of life, for the defense of the natural order created by God. Bad timing! Benedict XVI made himself famous at the same time by releasing the opinion that the use of condom for a male prostitute involved in sodomy “could be the beginning of a moralizing process”. The liberal press immediately got the message; the door is open for the Church authorizing the use of condoms; Fr Ortiz even told me that in the Carribean, novus ordo priests were distributing condoms. After such a lesson, we are still looking for gullibling opportunities!


    The big argument is that semi Arians didn’t convert overnight and sinners take time to overcome their bad habit, and if you treat Benedict harshly he is not going to listen, he is not going to change etc. First, the semi Arians were in no position of strength, they were not the local bishops of the diocese of St Basil and St Gregory; it is basic diplomacy: you rarely obtain anything if you concede something in a position of weakness. And secondly, did St Basil start to believe in the hermeneutic of continuity of the semis as we are doing now? Didn’t he correct actively the erroneous concepts of the semis (something Fr Iscara is not proposing us to imitate in St Basil), while postponing the use of difficult expression for a brief time?

    The problem is that if you eat supper with the Devil (and our devil is in a position of strength), you need a very long spoon. Bishop Williamson should be the one to be put in charge of the relations with the new rome… and in charge of communication with the media! (cries of terrified horror in the congregation)

    The solution of this crisis is like an exorcism performed on the authorities demolishing today’s Church.So many people have joined tradition over the course of years, by us staying above the water, and now we think we are going to catch fishes by dialogue and brave, traditional sword thrusts in the water!?


    I always thought that the SSPX understood the question of religious liberty; it doesn’t seem to be the case if one read the interview of Fr Schmidberger in the angelus and the interview of Bishop Fellay on Catholic News Network (?).

    The many lectures publications, symposiums and interviews against Vatican II don’t seem to sink in our minds any more. They don’t guarantee us from becoming lilly-livered against new errors, from becoming implacable placators in our turn, fighting against whistle-blowers in our midst, and from becoming popularity seekers before the media.

    I remember asking Bishop Fellay in Cebu, before Assisi III, if he could make some big statement and gesture, like the Archbishop did for Assisi I. All I got was an angry NO, on account of our work of dealing with rome now.

    One can understand why Menzingen wants to postpone the General Chapter… there are so many doctrinal questions that need to be assessed and redressed.

    I remember praying in 1994, for the election of Bishop Fellay. Next time I will not give any names to God but pray for a General who shall lead us into the battle, vigorously and wisely.

    But compromisers can firm up sometimes, so I won’t give up just as yet on Bishop Fellay. Pius IX started a liberal and quickly became a rock of truth after his election; Archbishop Lefebvre believed in religious liberty when he was young. We are now completely at the mercy of God, who can punish us if we don’t watch what we pray for.


    Just as we are nice to Benedict XVI, good priests and bishops resisting reconciliation are facing growing threats, a perfect repeat of Vatican II: “If you don’t agree with the official stance of the Society, leave the society”. Well, the duty of a priest of the Society is not necessarily to uphold the position of the society, especially if it has just changed all of a sudden one good morning of May 2012. The duty of a priest of the Society is to protect the Catholic Faith, as long as the official church is overrun by modernism.

    Another threat: “Your dialectic between Faith and authority is contrary to the Priesthood” But this exactly what Caiphas told Peter, this is the contrary to that vital quote of Galatians I, 8&9; “If even I or an angel of God…” This is exactly the manner of speech of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop.

    Another threat: “You don’t have the grace of state to see the greater picture, you are stepping out of line and spreading confusion” The best way to start confusion in the SSPX is to tamper with its DNA; then of course a cancer is beginning to spread.


    We can still believe, in may 2012, that Our Lady still loves the Society, for as a clear secret plan (deliberate or not, it doesn’t matter) and many things were set in place to bring about an official reunion of the official SSPX and the official church; in just a few days, the whole ship got torpedoed.

    For it is Britain, and Britain gloriously alone that put an inglorious end to treason, by leaking letters on the internet. Indeed, in this hour, even the frogs will be forever in the debt of these British gentlemen at their finest. In one swift Nelsonian move, all the fowl dispositions of our enemies got exposed and their lies confounded by their own mouths.

    The most important thing that these letters do is to break the law of silence. Yes, we knew that something was brewing, and we were slowly talked into it, be we did not expect that it was in such an advanced stage. For our faithful, who for the most were completely unsuspecting, the brutal reality of a split in the Society appeared, thereby compelling them to reach for their rosaries and request the crisis to be averted.

    The twin letters of Bishops give such perfect account of the opposite doctrinal positions in the SSPX, that hardly any one of us could give a better summary. Even if the Menzingen letter is written after, the letter of the three remains the answer to it; in such a wise as one could put the facing arguments in two opposite columns.

    The Menzingen letter of one bishop sounds as it is written by three and the letter of the three bishops reads as it is written by one.The first part of the Menzingen letter read just like Dom Gerard in 1988, the second part, about depth and breadth seems to be written by somebody else who buys the notion that the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI is not all that bad, and the last third reads like our internal bulletin and directives that urge us to march triumphantly, we little oysters, into the canonical plate of the Walrus and Carpenter. Its tone is clearly the same tone as Bishop Fellay.

    But the resistance of the three proved too strong to overcome, for the moment. Our Lady is indeed a most beautiful queen, and adding to her charm, three little animals came in succession: a cat, a lamb and a dove. Allow me to put it williamsonically for you:

    Bishop   Williamson / Tissier de Mallerais / de Gallareta

    (big) Cat / Lamb / Dove

    Main Weapon   
    Big mouth / Big speculative intellect / Big practical intellect

    Main Target   
    Bishop Fellay / Benedict XVI / Link betwixt the 2

    Angle of attack   
    Hard and Hot / Cold / Soft

    +Fellay too angry / +Fellay too indifferent / +Fellay not angry enough

    Effect on Bishop Fellay   
    Would like to expel but can’t / Would like to refute but can’t / Would like to  disagree but can’t

    Effect on the new rome   
    Can’t even smell the SSPX / Can’t debate successfully with the SSPX / Can’t ever bring about a practical deal with the SSPX




    In the end one wonders why Bishop Fellay chose to press on regardless of the opposition of the three bishops, and the degree of impreparation of the new rome itself. In the SSPX, the three bishops carry and enormous weight, despite the fact that they are not in control of the administrative machinery of the SSPX. Many priests remain at first silent on the whole question, some are scared for their future, some resist openly but maybe clumsily(yours truly), and one should not blame them for not having the same grace of Confession as a bishop, but as the faithful sense more clearly the danger with their sensus fidei, the shifting lines of battle are gradually pushing back the idea of a false peace with the new rome. What shall happen in this hot summer of 2012 will determine the nature of our war for many years to come.

    My dear faithful,

    we are in the thick of the storm, much shaken and fearful, but with Our Lady, comfortably resting in our hearts, until the head of the SSPX adjust itself to reality and the visible head of the Church returns to Tradition:

    War is on, and when war is upon us, war on.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #24 on: January 01, 2013, 12:13:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982:

    I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the traditional teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Quoted by Fr. Hewko in his Open Letter to His Excellency Bishop Fellay, Society Priests, Religious and Faithful, dated November 8, 2012.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #25 on: January 01, 2013, 12:31:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bishop Fellay (2003) vs Bishop Fellay (2012): Condemnation of the Campos Sellout is a Condemnation of the SSPX Practical Accord!

    Dear Friends and Benefactors,


    Once again our Letter to Friends and Benefactors is reaching you a little late. Once again we hesitated to write to you sooner for fear of leaving out an important development in our relations with Rome, especially after the Campos-Rome agreement. In the eyes of Rome, obviously, what happened in Campos was merely meant to be the prelude to our own "regularization" in the Society of St. Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.

    Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX. On all sides we hear that the pope would like to settle this matter before he dies. Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful.

    Of course we are dealing with a volatile situation capable of sudden and surprising changes, like in times of political instability. And in such a situation, nobody can be certain of what turn it will take. Also we do behold in the Vatican offices a certain questioning of the way things have gone for the last few decades, and a desire on the part of some officials to put an end to the downhill slide.

    However, it is clear that the principle governing today's Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official docuмents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle, on the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecuмenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jєωs. From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table.

    The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome's own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos. For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement and secondly, how Campos is moving further and further away from ourselves, with all the upset that that implies.


    Campos, through its leader, Bishop Rifan, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome's offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position.

    For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one's adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that "Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass", or, "Campos has completely given up Tradition". However, that being said, here is what we observe:

    The Campos website lays out the Campos position on the burning question of ecuмenism: they claim to follow the Magisterium of the Church, past and present. There are quotes from Pius XI's encyclical letter Mortalium Animos, next to quotes from John Paul II's Redemptoris Missio. We cannot help observing that there has been a careful selection process: Campos quotes John Paul II's traditional passages while other passages introducing a quite new way of looking at the question are passed over. We read, "Being Catholics, we have no particular teaching of our own on the question. Our teaching is none other than that of the Church's Magisterium. The extracts which we publish here from certain docuмents old and new, bear especially on points of Catholic doctrine which are in greater danger today".

    The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favorable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet, And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: "We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting". Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome's gesture in favor of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation...They are forgetting the wood for a single tree.

    Bishop Rifan, in the course of a brief visit to Europe, went to see Dom Gerard at Le Barroux Abbey in France to present his apologies for having so criticized him back in 1988 when Dom Gerard condemned Archbishop Lefebvre's consecrating or four bishops. In a lecture he gave to the monks, Bishop Rifan pretended there were two phases in the life or Bishop de Castro Mayer: up till 1981 he was supposedly a docile bishop respecting the rest of the hierarchy, from 1981 onwards he was a much harder churchman... "We choose to follow the pre-1981 de Castro Mayer", said Bishop Rifan to the monks, some of whom were surprised at such words, and one of them was scandalized to the point of coming over to the SSPX.

    Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: "So we reject all use of the traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith (…)". We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: "Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of St. Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It's not the same thing". That was Rome's argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of St. Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The cardinal's curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today's Rome. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition", said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chretienne. Yet a well-known cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing....

    So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests' tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday's warnings and today's deviations are left out. The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted.


    Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome.

    A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past.

    To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants —for the moment.

    One may object that our arguments are weak and too subtle, and of no weight as against Rome's offer to regularize our situation. We reply that if one considers Rome's offer of an Apostolic Administration just by itself, it is as splendid as the architect's plan of a beautiful mansion. But the real problem is the practical problem of what foundations the mansion will rest on. On the shifting sands of Vatican II, or on the rock of Tradition going back to the first Apostle?

    To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today's Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have re-stated with actions speaking louder than words that "there must be no innovations outside of Tradition", then "we" shall no longer be a problem. And we beg God to hasten that day when the whole Church will flourish again, having re-discovered the secret of her past strength, freed from the modern unthought of which Paul VI said that "It is anti-Catholic in nature, Maybe it will prevail. It will never be the Church. There will have to be a faithful remnant, however tiny".


    Let us also tell you of life inside the Society, to give you a little share in our apostolic joys and labors. And let us make use of this letter to tell you a little of our activity in missionary countries. It is true that today almost all countries, especially in our old Europe, are again becoming missionary countries. Priests, in their apostolic travels, visit over 65 countries, some of them still today suffering direct persecution of the Faith. But as this letter is already long, let us confine ourselves to two new areas of our apostolate. We had been visiting them off and on for a number of years, but just recently we think they are opening up in an astonishing way: Lithuania and Kenya.

    In order the better to organize our apostolate in Russia and White Russia, we have established a bridgehead in Lithuania, a country which suffered much under Russian Communist persecution and where it took heroism to keep Catholicism going. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the Eastern countries put their trust in the novelties from the Vatican, being persuaded that anything coming from the West had to be good… These countries swiftly caught up on the state of disaster inflicted by the reforms. Any reaction is rather passive than visible, so we do not see them taking action. But once our priests got over the language difficulty, they are discovering ground that promises to be fertile for Tradition, more so than our first fruitless attempts had given us to expect. Welcomed with a severe warning from the local bishops to Catholics to stay away from us, our priests nevertheless discovered numerous priests wishing to join us. These explained their bishops' severity: it was out of fear that Catholics would come to us in large numbers. For instance we have been approached by a little congregation of sisters, founded by Cardinal Vincentas Sladkevicius, Archbishop Emeritus of Kaunas. Before he died on May 28, 2000, he left orders with the sisters: "When the Society of St. Pius X comes, you must join them. They will restore the Church in Lithuania". May God with His grace enable us to live up to the Archbishop's expectation! The main cities now have their little Mass center where interest is slight for the moment, but becomes more pressing each day.

    Kenya has been receiving sporadic visits from Society priests for the last 25 years, but we have only just discovered the existence of a group of 1,500 faithful organizing their struggle for the Faith with their refusal of communion in the hand and standing. Our first contacts with them show very clearly that they are battling not only for the right way to receive communion but also for a whole traditional attitude. We are discovering also a number of nuns who have left their different Congregations or been chased out of them because they refused the Vatican II reforms. Living in the world they remained faithful to their vows. Now 16 of them are coming over to us in the hope of being able once more to live in community.

    A young priest said to us, "If you set up a chapel here, it will empty out the cathedral. When I visit the faithful they say to me: 'Why have you changed our Church? Say Mass like it used to be!' But I don't know the old Mass, I don't know how the Church was before. When I ask older priests, they send me packing. Can you teach me to say the old Mass? Can I visit you to learn?" Another priest, also young, said in a tone of voice that spoke volumes. "I will note down in my diary for this evening: my first Tridentine Mass".

    How can the Church authorities not heed the cry of these souls thirsting for grace and the Catholic life? Beneath the ashes and ruins left by Vatican II, there are still traditional Catholic embers glowing, needing only to blaze up again. The Church does not die. God watches over it. May He grant us to be His docile instruments to spread the fire that His Heart burns to spread throughout the world!

    But you in particular, dear faithful, are well aware that we cannot manage to do all we would like to do; how we need priests! Pray, pray the master of the harvest to send numerous workers into his apostolic field.

    At the beginning of this new year, full of gratitude and warm thanks for all your unfailing generosity, we entrust you with praying for priests, for the sacrifice of the Mass. God bless you and all your families with an abundance of all His graces.

    +Bishop Fellay
    January 6, 2003

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #26 on: January 01, 2013, 02:03:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Most Reverend Bishop Fellay                                                                                                                

    Mendoza, 12 October 2012
    Your Excellency,

    Through this, I express to be, with all due respect, my deep concern about the current state of our congregation, and for the future of it.

    Since the middle of this year, the SSPX is in a state characterized, internally, by a deep division and a serious crisis of confidence in the authority, and, externally, by a noticeable weakening of our defense forces in of faith and a growing disrepute. They breathe, indeed, other air in the congregation, very different from the usual, as we see around us is installed confusion, discord, fear, suspicion and accusation.

    This internal breakdown reaches the entire congregation, from our bishops to the laity, the most general and profound ever in the 42 year life of the SSPX. The fracture is due to the way it conducts ongoing talks with Roma liberal. The secret that has fallen on the talks, has meant a series of obviously foreseeable dangers, but has not decided SER effective means to counter them. In these circuмstances, some members of the congregation, tired from the long fight or yielding to the dominant liberal tendencies, approving an agreement with the idea modernist Rome, while others fail because they think that it is reasonable to assume that the Church will come out the terrible crisis being experienced since the fateful Vatican Tradition subjecting the Liberals to power. The question: What would be the use of an adjustment in the current context? Are we at fault in the eyes of God, to remain for four decades outside the official structure, no counterweight dominated by modernists any? Is it realistic to think that we could get that balance? Is it reasonable to undergo a stubborn liberal authorities whose aim is to bring to Vatican II? Does such a thing is clearly not suicidal? Or is that the current pope is no longer a true liberal? Certain appointments recently made by the Holy Father, as the Card. Müller, does not prove that it is irrational to put in the hands of the current Rome?

    No matter that the initiative has come from the Vatican agreement or our superiors, since the mere acceptance of the possibility of a peace-necessarily false and unfair-that continue to destroy the Church, constitutes a clear and dangerous illusion . It is intended that the 1988 would be a precedent in favor of this agreement, but rather what happens contrary, for if it is to follow examples, should imitate the holy men in their successes, not their mistakes, and we know that Archbishop Lefebvre prompt and expressly retracted his erroneous and fleeting intention to regularize the congregation subjecting the power of the modernist hierarchy (cf. letter to the Holy Father of 02/06/88). We must stick to his final will, not a temporary desire was explicit, unambiguous and finally revoked.

    As part of the negotiations with Rome, it has resorted to the use of expressions often ambiguous. Ambiguity has acquired, with that citizenship rights in the SSPX. This new way of talking to the modernists and the world is causing, among other evils, grave scandal to many traditionalists. No doubt about it, in the present circuмstances of gradual extinction of faith, defend the truth with clear and precise words with the destroyers of the Catholic religion and to all men, is a serious duty. The first charity is the truth. The devil used the ambiguity for that big win hers called Vatican II, and now we will fight with more ambiguity ambiguity? His Excellency, however, has chosen to dilute with weasel words several truths, including precisely the categorical and unequivocal condemnation that for 42 years we have made the council, the main cause of the current disastrous state of general apostasy and consequent condemnation many souls. The ambiguities were generated, as was perfectly predictable, a lot of rumors, but what HE dispusiera relevant to dissipate promptly.

    There is now in the SSPX, and not only at the level of words, a "new style" whose characteristic features are the ambiguity, diplomacy, secrecy, hesitation and timidity. This major change is undermining our fight against the errors that poison the Church and against wolves in sheep's clothing that broadcast, and yet, we are discrediting the basis: we are no longer the Congregation of the Priests of that "yeah yeah, no no "that Christ commanded, that of calling things by their name, no matter what happens and no matter what happens. The driving mode, SER, in addition to the above, is authoritative for the subjects and too soft and yielding to the enemy, is impacting disastrously at all levels of the life of the SSPX.

    The soldiers, for better or worse, follow their General, hence the old attitude of direct, manly and resolute belligerence against the enemies of Christ, who is admired in our priests, has given way to the diplomatic calculation, the fear, the discouragement and even cowardice. So the statement in Chapter July, at a time when the whole Church we looked closely, it was not without some ambiguity and some weakness. The six conditions for regularization, recently released, are clearly insufficient and equally demonstrative of some weakness before the modernist Rome.

    In this unfortunate scenario, trust among members of the congregation is particularly wound. How can you trust a Superior discarded the advice and warnings of all other bishops and our Founder? In May we read a correspondence between the four bishops, in which BE is trying to impose its own opinion to the latter, in order to reach an agreement with Rome. By letter dated April 7, the other three Bishops warn the General Council: "Monsignor, Fathers, pay attention, you lead the fraternity to be a tipping point, a deep division no turning back, and if you come to a such agreement, to powerful destructive forces that she will not support. If up until the bishops of the Fraternity have protected it is precisely because Archbishop Lefebvre rejected a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition issued by the Chapter of 2006 has not been made (change of course by Rome to allow a practical agreement), listen back to its founder. "Despite these words His Excellency went ahead in the attempt to reach an agreement with Rome.

    Several months earlier, Bishop de Galarreta also warned His Excellency, equally clear, foreseeable consequences that would continue with the fact that intent: "Moving towards a practical agreement would deny our word and our commitments our priests, our faithful, Rome and against everyone. Such a procedure would manifest a serious diplomatic weakness by the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would impact the loss of credibility and moral authority that we enjoy. But not listened to Bishop de Galarreta.

    No case was His Excellency the warnings of his peers, but continued to lead our ship into the rocks of the agreement. If finally it was not signed, was solely due to the Pope, surprisingly, the demands raised over what was willing to accept (cf. conference Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of 09/12/16) Today we suffer the predictable, serious and perhaps irreparable consequences of such stubborn attitude incompressible.

    Excellency is highly surprising if you have opted to discard the apparently unanimous and warnings from their peers, much worse and more worrying is the fact that BE has said that the will of the Roman modernist outweighs the good of the SSPX: "For the common good of the fraternity, by far prefer the current solution of intermediate status quo, but obviously not tolerate Rome more" (response to 3 Bishops, 4/14/12). Read: the liberals and modernists in Rome not tolerate more.

    Therefore, considering the above, and considering the first-to-the SSPX is in a serious crisis caused by a very poor exercise of authority, by failing to take steps to bring it to prevent the evils which today easily foreseeable regret, and-second-that this situation persists, we will gradually destroying without any agreement with Rome, as a member of this congregation, respectfully beg Your Excellency that for the good of the Church, for the good of the SSPX and for its own sake, the sooner resign the office of Superior General. Only the replacement of existing authorities by other farsighted, really diligent about the essential duty to ensure our unity, and to retain the spirit that has always characterized our congregation, will enable the SSPX back into righteous and holy way by that led Archbishop Lefebvre.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    P. P. René Miguel Trincado Cvjetkovic.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #27 on: January 01, 2013, 02:13:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of Fr Joseph Pfeiffer to Fr Couture:

    Dear Fr. Couture,
    In Answer to the Second "canonical monition" and after taking counsel from a Canon Lawyer, and other priests, it is necessary to note the following:

    1. It is soley within the competence of the Superior General to give Monitions of expulsion to the members of his order. Lower authorities do not have the competence. (e.g District Superiors can punish only within their districts in regard to their district) Hence the Superior General is the correct authority to both admonish and expel his subjects according to Justice and the law.
    Therefore, the two "canonical monitions" sent from the District of Asia go beyond the competence of the District. Expulsion of members, especially perpetual members of the SSPX belongs to Superior General alone. To date, I received no communication either of praise or correction from the Superior General. Therefore I remain, according to the law, a member in good standing in the SSPX.

    2. No specific crime is indicated in the monition, hence no delict exists since "odiosa sunt adstrigenda." no one can be punished for "scandal and spiritual damage" as you claim in your second monition, but only for specific acts which can thus be exposed by the prosecution and answered by the defendant before an impartial tribunal--which tribunal does not exist.

    The 2 "canonical Monitions" are invalid on the grounds of exceeding the competence of the one issuing it and on the grounds of lack of clear accusation of crime. On either ground the case of expulsion should not only be thrown out of court, but should not be allowed to be tried.

    3. I have received a positive command from you to be completely silent on anything that either is or may be perceived to be a criticism of the Superior General and his current direction. This last week, Bishop Fellay seems to have reversed his current and now says that he was deceived and erred in a dangerous way in the past few months. Does this mean that those in favor of the current that flows to Rome should now be silenced? Does this mean that now I can criticize compromising with Rome? Now I can say no deal with Rome until Rome converts? (Yesterday this must have been wrong since yesterday the SG had a different idea. But today it is true since today the SG has changed his mind.) Does Truth evolve? Your answer must be "Not so but distinguo in the Superior YES in the subject NO" This is mitigated modernism, Truth evolves for the modernist period, but for you and the neo-SSPX truth cannot evolve in mere mortals or mere popes, but only in "the Superior General." Your place in the fight for Tradition is thus undermined and completely unstable since it rests on the cult of a man instead of the Divine Cult of God in His Church and in His unchanging Faith.

    4. Fr. Chazal and myself made no predictions about the deal with Rome. Fr. Schmidtburger and Fr. lombardi announced it for the end of May. Then The Vatican for June 13, We only repeated what they said, so that the faithful would know. We are not the prophets of doom. We only preach what we SSPXers, including yourself, have consistently preached for the last 40 years. (i.e VII =Bad, eternal Rome=Good: Compromise=evil: Fidelity to unchanging Truth=Good: Deal with Rome before Rome converts=Bad: Deal with Rome w/o conversion=Wicked betrayal etc. cf. ABL ubique)

    We let our yes be yes and our no be no. We operate in the open and resist Modernism and its protaganists "to the face." Our fight is not with men nor even Menzingen, but with the Devil and his host.

    If you were secure in your position of turning to Modernist Rome to make the SSPX another Novus Ordo appendage as the FSSP et alii, you would be able to defend this position in the light of day with clear arguments, and proofs of the supposed change of Rome, and of the clear difference of Rome today with the Rome of Vatican II errors. If you stood on Truth, you would not need to resort to threats and defamation to discredit those who disagree with the neo-SSPX.

    Further our problem, Fr. Chazal and myself, is not only with a deadly wicked deal with non converted Conciliar Rome, but more importantly, our problem with the neo-SSPX is its modernist tendancies, promoted by the official organs of the SSPX such as and which have mixed Novus Ordo and Traditional things together, (e.g. present banner of showing Novus ordo ordinands then SSPX ordinands as if they are the same! article on bishops criticizing lack of Religious Liberty in Afganistan, explaining away the popes promotion of condoms for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and so on) without any clarifications, condemnations of the various selected acts of Modernist Rome.

    Fr. Chazal and I are not disturbed by the threats of excommunication from our Order or from any unjust treatments connected thereto. We are not upset with those who malign and condemn us, many do so with good will, unaware of the danger to Faith, now present within the SSPX ranks and pews throughout the world. We also have happily worked under your direction over the past 6 years for myself, and 10 years for Fr. Chazal. You have been in so many ways good to us. Our problem is only with the danger to souls presented by the present unstable modernist direction of the SSPX

    We continue "as we are," priests of the SSPX at war with Modernism. We continue "as we are" loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, following his clear non-compromising Catholic plan of action for our times. We continue "as we are" in the work of spreading the Gospel with the Caritas Christi which urget nos.

    in Christ,

    Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
    London Airport Sept. 13, 2012

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #28 on: January 01, 2013, 02:26:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr Eric Julien Laurent Jacqmin speaks out
    From  Downloaded on July 5, 2012
    Like all my colleagues in the SSPX, I certainly would like, as I have done so far, to obey my superiors, but in the current case, I have serious doubts that the Common Good would be served.

    A. Bishop Fellay gives as the reason for his decision to go forward with an agreement with Rome, in the introduction 'Word of the Superior General' in "Cor Unum" March 2012): p.8 "We can no longer believe that this is a 'steamroller' .. " but the steamroller is still moving forward: recent evidence is the letter of Mgr. Pozzo to Father Laguérie: IPB (Institute of the Good Shepherd) must accept the New Mass (for priests who are members; and they do not have the Tridentine Mass as their "own rite"), they must not criticize Vatican II so much and they must teach the new catechism in their seminary.  p.6-7: the younger clergy is open to Tradition, we could catch them more easily: considerations: but there is a long way to go: they have little formation, they have suffered a deep deformation and they are difficult to convert completely (proof, the contact with young priests I've had recently: they are of good faith, I hope, and have admiration for tradition, but are steeped in error).


    B An admission is proof. Mgr. Fellay admits that for the good of the SSPX it would be better not to make an agreement with Rome. That says everything. We would like to choose for the common good of the SSPX, obviously, this is the final cause of every society. But inexplicably, Bishop Fellay prefers the desire of the Pope, against what he knows to be the common good of the SSPX: 14 April 2012 letter of Bishop Fellay to the three bishops: "Let it be noted in passing that we have not sought a practical agreement. This is false. But we have not rejected a priori, as you request, to consider the offer of the pope. For the common good of the Fraternity, we would by far prefer the current status quo, though obviously Rome is not prepared to put up with that any longer."

    C Mgr. Fellay said May 11th, 2012 to CNS "I cannot exclude that there might be a split (in the SSPX)." According to Aristotle unity is one of the greatest assets of a society.

    D Even if Mgr. Fellay were right, then a good leader still does not advance until he has checked that he is being followed by a good majority: that is not the case now ... a very large part do not agree with him, including three bishops.

    E Rules of 'Discernment of Spirits': This decision causes confusion and disagreement within the SSPX. It's a bad sign.

    F After this pope, who is 85 years old, there will be another; the post-conciliar Hegelian pendulum will probably swing to the other side: progressivism. And then who will protect us?

    F Bishop Fellay has said repeatedly that the Pope is so good and well intentioned towards tradition. Apart from the fact that this is a subjective argument and therefore weak, it is especially dangerous. The current pope, favoring tradition but not condemning progressivism (see list below *), operates in effect as a perfect modernist:

    First proof: Proof let's read "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" St Pius X (September 8, 1907):
    "Nr.36 ... So let us say, summing up modernist thought, that an evolution results from the conflict of two forces, one pushing for progress, while the other tends to conservatism. The conservative force in the Church, it is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority (A). This is so in law and fact: in law, because the defense of tradition is like a natural instinct of authority, in fact, because, hovering over the contingencies of life, authority does not feel, or very little, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, is one that meets the needs, and ferments in individual consciences, and especially in those who are in more intimate contact with life. You can clearly see here, Venerable Brethren, this pernicious doctrine that wants to make the laity, a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is a sort of compromise and agreement between the conservative and the progressive force that gradual changes and progress is made (B) ... "
    Conclusion: According to the modernists is quite normal that the Pope supports Tradition.
    See text in bold (A) – IN ORDER TO advance modernist trends in the Church: see bold text above (B).
    This is evident in the life of the present Pope. As a theologian, Josef Ratzinger was in the "progressive party" neo modernist, and now, as authority (Prefect and then Pope) he must needs promote tradition, this modernist is acting according to the rule above. Indeed, the pope has not converted to Tradition, as he has reissued all his works from when he was an erroneous theologian when he was elected pope without correcting them and he has just refused our arguments for Tradition in the theological discussions. He favors Tradition, only to advance his Hegelian progress. Absit!

    The pope has not converted: the list of facts that prove it is long:

    21.10.2007: Interfaith Meeting of Naples;

    28.04.2008: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of New York;

    15.07.2008: World Youth Day Sydney with its liturgy "enculturated" and pagan rituals;

    12.05.2009: Visit to the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem;
    12.05.2009: Jєωιѕн Ritual at the Wailing Wall;
    17.01.2010: Visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє of Rome;
    14.03.2010: Active participation in the Lutheran worship in Rome;
    01.05.2011: Beatification of John Paul II;
    27.10.2011: Reiteration of the scandal of Assisi;
    2012: theological discussions demonstrate the contradiction between the thoughts of Rome and Tradition.
    Remember also:

    common prayer with the imams in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul on 30 November 2006

    his cordial meeting with a "woman priest" at the Anglican Westminster Abbey 17 September 2010,
    the invitation to the Vatican of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ group called "gαy Circus" December 15, 2010, who performed before him a choreography of perverts.
    Benedict refused to kiss the crucifix on Good Friday, during the liturgy of the "adoration" of the cross, in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (we do not know what will happen in 2012).
    "L'Osservatore Romano" (French) No. 3229 of March 29, 2012, p.17: Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Mass on Revolution Square in Havana (Cuba), 28-03, was still advocating religious freedom for all "believers" who "nourish the hope for a better world" (...) "When the Church emphasizes this right (religious freedom), it does not claim any privilege for itself. "
    Bishop Fellay in the same way. said that the solution proposed by Rome is not a trap (letters to the bishops p.3), but there is evidence to the contrary:

    Second proof: Admissions
    2001: A legal maxim says that "an admission is proof."
    In two interviews, the "Il Giornale" and the "Avvenire" - on the occasion of the presentation of his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" - Cardinal Ratzinger argued that there was still a long way to go towards an agreement, and he attributed the blame for the delay in the ending of the discussions from the side of the Society.
    See DICI No. 2 of April 6, 2001, which gives the text of an interview with Cardinal R. to the Italian newspaper "Il Giornale" Monday, April 3, 2001. I give only the gist of the text:

    1) Cardinal Ratzinger said about the SSPX: "The road is still long. I must say there is a strong hardening in the # # # # movement, I notice that they are turned in on themselves, and this makes problematic the reconciliation process, at least in the short term."
    "The followers of Archbishop Lefebvre have resented the post-conciliar liturgical reform (...)" ...

    2) Question of IG: "What steps have the # # # # es to make to get closer to the Holy See? "
    Cardinal Ratzinger replied: "Recognizing that the liturgy of the Council is still the same liturgy of the Church, it is not something else. Recognize that the church renovated by the Council is not another Church, but is still the same Church that lives and grows. "
    The goal of negotiations is that we accept the NOM, post conciliar liturgy, and the new ecclesiology ("subsists in" etc..). The aim is downright bad. Numquam possumus.

    3) Question of IG: "What can we do to meet them?"
    Cardinal Ratzinger's response:
    "We must do our best to attract these brothers and sisters, to give them the confidence they have lost. Inside the church a wound heals better: if the confrontation takes place outside, we shall grow further apart. "
    "We must recognize that by the traditional liturgy of Saint Pius V, they are still inside the common church tradition. We must be generous to allow that the common Christian tradition is expressed in different ritual forms. It is a difficult path of reconciliation, as often happens in a family dispute. We need to provide a starting point in the reconciliation process. "
    The means to achieve the goal is by means of generosity. Being generous, that is to say: open your heart, recognize, allow, provide a starting point, the reconciliation process.
    In practice: the creation of an apostolic administration etc. .. are the generous practical means to attain the goal.
    Conclusion: Frankly, to try to achieve a bad goal (this goal is confessed: to make us accept the errors of Vatican II) by means of generosity, this is called a maneuver.
    At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre had already seen this with the Fraternity of St. Peter, he gave them ten years ( of "generosity")
    Shame that Campos etc. .. have fallen into this same trap. In the IPB it seems already after 5 years ..

    3rd Ad confirmandum: another confession of Pope Benedict XVI, "the Motu Proprio is simply an act of tolerance"
    September 12, 2008, on the plane that took him to France, Benedict XVI publicly confirmed its intention: "the Motu Proprio (" Summorum Pontificorum "of July 7, 2007) is simply an act of tolerance" .. "There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by Vatican II and the old ".... On their side friends of the old liturgy can and should know the new saints, new prefaces of the liturgy, etc. ..... In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our times. Thank you. Source: Zenit

    4th Lourdes September 14, 2008 before all the bishops of France,
    Benedict-Ratzinger has continued to clarify his thoughts, before the bishops of France, following the same guiding principle: that of the absorption of traditionalist splinter group within the conciliar church, in the name of the same tolerance ". . I was led to state in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм, the conditions for exercise of this office, regarding the possibility of using both the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962), that of Pope Paul VI (1970). I know your difficulties, but I do not doubt that you can achieve in reasonable time, satisfactory solutions for all so that the seamless tunic of Christ be not further torn ... Let us therefore always be servants of unity!

    Let's be careful. This is the "unity in Vatican II ...": there are two masses, because there are two groups, the conflict should lead to progress and evolution (nr cfr.Pascendi 36 above): the reform of the reform, "the Mass of St. Thesis [synthesis]" (that is to say, according to Hegel, the conflict between a useful and necessary thesis and an antithesis produces a "synthesis" that makes progress and evolves).
    "Personally, I am mistrustful ... I've always had a feeling of distrust and I must admit I've always thought that all they do is to get us to accept the Council and to accept the post-conciliar reforms "(Lefebvre, 1988).

    5th We will not do what we want
    Proof: 08/06/2012 Dici:
    DICI: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you have indicated in recent statements. .. Are you willing to accept that future works are possible only with the permission of the bishop in the dioceses where the Society of St. Pius X is not currently present?
    Mgr: ".... It remains true - as is the law of the Church - that to open a new chapel or found a work, it would be necessary to have permission from the local ordinary. We have of course presented in Rome how our current situation was difficult in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here and there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties? .. "

    6th note:
    Since the common good is at stake (the unity of the Society, preserving of the deposit of faith), it seems useful to ask some fundamental principles on this subject:

    1) Quote "Cor Unum" nr 85, page 26:
    "Motions [and decisions] of the General Chapter - I.1. Relations with Rome"
    "If an agreement with the Holy See were seriously considered, an extraordinary general chapter would be convened to address the issue."

    2) Quote of Raoul Naz "Treatise of Canon Law", T 1, nr 816,
    "General Chapter has more power than the superior general.
    It can make laws or at least take steps that must remain in effect until the next chapter. "
    Naz does not place restrictions on these two principles. He gives a reference to the Dictionary of Canon Law which confirms the history of religious families in the Church through the centuries.

    3) Conclusion absolutely clear:
    Of the supreme authority of the SSPX and a chapter must be held to address the issue of a possible imminent agreement with Rome.

    The text box is checked and approved by an official of the SSPX.
    Tradition gives this principle which can be summarized thus: "A General Chapter has supreme powers in a society of law of the Church. Therefore it has the powers and the grave duty to elect or to remove any person of authority as required by the common good and to verify and sanction fidelity to the founder, to the Rule, the Constitutions and Statutes of the General Chapters past ".

    7th "Mortalium Animos"
    An agreement of "SSPX with Rome without conversion" is entirely under the doctrine of Vatican II, which advocates a "ministry of unity with everyone without conversion" (Nostra Aetate, the "spirit of Assisi", the new ecuмenism) condemned by "Mortalium Animos".

    8th Archbishop Lefebvre

    Conference in Flavigny, in December 1988 Preview Fideliter No. 68 (March 1989) p. 16

    "We must be free of compromise both with regard to sedevacantists as well as those who absolutely want to be subjected to ecclesiastical authority. We remain committed to our Lord Jesus Christ. But Vatican II was dethroned our Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord, the king, prince and ruler of the world. We cannot change this course of action. So when we get asked the question when will there be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome recrowns "Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who uncrown Our Lord. The day they recognize again our Lord King of peoples and nations, it is not us who shall have rejoined them , but they who come back to the Catholic Church in which we live. "
    + Marcel Lefebvre, Flavignv, December 1988

    Conference in Sierre (Switzerland) on 27 XI 1988 fideliter Extract from No. 89 (September 1992) p.12:

    "This is a general apostasy, which is why we resist, but the Roman authorities would have us accept it. When I discussed with them in Rome, they wanted me to recognize religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I cannot. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani faithful to all the popes, and not this new doctrine which has always been condemned. That's in what consists our opposition, and that is why we cannot agree. It's not so much the question of the Mass, the Mass is precisely one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism and thus transform the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. ... The real fundamental opposition is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Opportet regnare Illum," says St. Paul. Our Lord came to rule. They say no. And we say yes, with all the popes. Our Lord came not to be hidden inside houses without coming outside. Why the missionaries, of whom so many were slaughtered? To preach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. Then the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they did not hesitate to give their lives to continue to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And now we should do the opposite, saying to the Gentiles "your religion is good, preserve it, provided you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans! "This is why we cannot get along with them, because we obey our Lord saying to the apostles:" Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. "
    That is why we should not be surprised that we did not manage to make an agreement with Rome. It will not be possible until Rome returns to the faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of Catholic faith, clash as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, and as all popes clashed with liberalism. This is the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church. "
    Ave Maria, ora pro nobis.

    Sacred Heart of Jesus have mercy on us.
    Father Eric Julien Lawrence Jacqmin +

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11773
    • Reputation: +8035/-3009
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #29 on: January 01, 2013, 03:06:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Rivarol
    Quoted from Rorate Coeli
    June 1, 2012 Interview with Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
    Last Public Words of Opposition
    He Became an Accordista 1 Month Later After the 2012 SSPX General Chapter:

    R: What do you say to those who believe that Rome has changed with Benedict XVI?

    Bp. T: It is certain that Benedict XVI has made some gestures in favor of Tradition. Especially by declaring that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed and, in second place, by suppressing the so-called excommunication that had been declared regarding us following our episcopal consecration by Abp. Lefebvre. These two positive gestures drew bitter complaints from the episcopates towards Benedict XVI. But Pope Benedict XVI, while he is Pope, remains Modernist. His programmatic address of December 22, 2005 [on the hermeneutic of continuity and reform] is a profession of the evolution of the truths of faith according to the dominant ideas of each time. Despite his favorable gestures, his real intent by integrating us in the conciliar orb cannot be other than to lead us to Vatican II. He had said it himself to H.E. Bp. Fellay in August 2005, and a confidential note by himself, published fraudulently, has confirmed it recently. (Rorate note: the reference here is to a note attributed to Pope Benedict XVI and referring to the SSPX that was among those publicized in the Vatileaks affair.)